GIFT  or 


-.^  J*>>>»-      V3->* — «v,-»^^  .tf^*ji._>' 


I 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from . 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/churchunitystudiOObrigrich 


BOOKS  BY  CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS,  D.D. 
Pttbushed  by  CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


Church  Unity.  8vo,  net  ...  .  $2.50 
The  Book  of  Psalms,  ilntemational  Criti- 
cal Commentary.)  2  vols.  Cr.  8vo,  net  6.00 
The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus.  12vao,  net  1.50 
New  Light  on  the  Life  of  Jesus.  12mo,  net  1.20 
The  Incarnation  of  the  Lord.  8vo,  net  .  1.50 
Qeneral  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Holy 

Scripture.    Svo,  net        ....  3.00 
The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch. 

Cr.  Svo 2.50 

The  Messiah  of  the  Apostles.    Cr.  Svo     .  3.00 

The  Messiah  of  the  Gospels.    Cr.  Svo       .  2.00 
The  Bible,  the  Church  and  the   Reason. 

Cr.Svo 1.75 

American  Presbyter ianism.    Cr.  Svo         .  3.00 


CHURCH    UNITY 


CHURCH     UNITY 

STUDIES  OF 
ITS  MOST  IMPORTANT  PROBLEMS 


BY 

CHARLES  AUGUSTUS  BRIGGS,  D.D.,  D.Litt. 

GRADUATE  PROFESSOR  OF  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPiEDIA  AND    SYMBOUCS 

IN  THE  UNION  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY, 

NEW    YORK 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 

1909 


3X^ 

37 


Copyright,  1909,  by 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


Published  September,  1909 


sa 


o^ 


i- 


So 

WILLIAM  REED  HUNTINGTON,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

THE    CmEP     EXPONENT     OP    CHURCH     UNITY    IN     AMERICA 

THIS  BOOK 

IS  DEDICATED  IN  GRATITUDE  AND  LOVE 


«n*>-oun 


PREFACE 

For  twenty-five  years  and  more  the  author  has  laboured 
in  behalf  of  Church  Unity,  and  has  made  numerous  ad- 
dresses on  the  subject,  before  Roman  Catholics  in  America, 
France  and  in  Rome;  before  Protestant  bodies  of  many  differ- 
ent denominations  in  different  countries;  and  everywhere  he 
has  been  welcomed  with  sympathetic  attention.  He  has  also 
written  a  large  number  of  articles  on  the  subject  in  reviews, 
magazines,  and  journals  of  various  kinds,  both  at  home  and 
abroad.  He  has  conversed  on  the  subject  with  many  of  the 
ablest  theologians  and  chief  dignitaries  of  the  several  Christian 
Churches.  For  four  years  he  has  been  lecturing  in  the  Union 
Theological  Seminary  upon  the  new  discipline  of  Christian 
Irenics. 

Many  have  urged  him,  from  time  to  time,  to  gather  his  papers 
together  in  a  volume  for  their  wider  and  more  lasting  in- 
fluence; but  he  has  refrained  because  he  wished  to  make  a 
thorough  investigation  of  three  most  diflScult  questions: 
Infallibility,  the  Sacramental  System,  and  the  Validity  of 
Orders.  After  many  years  of  study  this  has  been  accom- 
plished ;  and  there  is  no  further  reason  for  delaying  the  publi- 
cation of  the  book. 

A  number  of  articles,  published  in  various  periodicals 
during  the  past  twenty-five  years,  have  been  used.  But 
these  have  all  been  carefully  revised,  and  put  in  their  proper 
order  in  the  volume.  At  least  one-half  of  the  material  of 
this  book  has  not  been  previously  published.     The  plan  of 


VUl  PREFACE 

the  volume  is  to  give  a  series  of  studies  of  the  chief  problems 
of  Church  Unity.  This  plan  involves  a  certain  amount  of 
repetition  here  and  there  of  minor  questions.  But  such 
repetition  is  more  formal  than  real ;  for  these  questions  are 
considered  from  different  points  of  view,  which  in  fact  puts 
them  in  different  lights  and  relations. 

The  volume  is  an  earnest  effort  to  solve  the  hard  problems 
of  Church  Unity,  and  to  reconcile  the  various  parties  to  the 
controversies  which  distract  Christendom.  There  is  an  ever 
increasing  number,  who  are  weary  of  these  fruitless  contro- 
versies and  are  eager  to  see  their  way  to  a  better  understand- 
ing of  the  real  issues.  It  is  the  hope  of  the  author  to 
encourage  such,  and  above  all  to  stimulate  young  men  of 
courage  and  goodwill,  to  undertake  this  work  of  Christian 
Irenics,  and  to  share  in  the  study  of  its  hard  problems. 

May  this  volume,  with  all  its  defects,  do  something  to  ad- 
vance the  reunion  of  Christendom,  a  cause  dear  to  the  heart 
of  Jesus,  and  to  men  of  goodwill  in  all  ages  and  nations  and 
denominations  of  Christians. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

I.  CHRISTIAN  IRENICS 1 

Its  Tasks 4 

Its  Spirit 11 

II.  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH  ...  23 

The  Term  Church 24 

The  Kingdom  of  God 33 

Other  Biblical  Terms  for  Church 37 

III.  CATHOLIC— THE  NAME  AND  THE  THING    .    .  46 

The  Term  Catholic 46 

Catholicity  and  Apostolicity 50 

Catholicity  and  Orthodoxy 55 

Catholic  and  Roman 57 

The  Ethical  Principle  of  Catholicity  ....  61 

The  Reugious  Principle  op  Catholicity   ...  64 

Geographical  Unity  and  Catholicity    ....  66 

The  Catholic  Reaction 69 

IV.  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE 73 

Church  and  State 74 

The  Historic  Episcopate  as  a  Term  of  Union  .  79 

Grounds  of  Opposition  to  Episcopacy    ....  82 

Advantages  of  the  Historic  Episcopate     ...  93 

V.  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS 102 

The  Apostolic  Commission 102 

The  Presbyter  Bishops 105 

The  Validity  of  Anglican  Orders 110 

The  Validity  of  Presbyterian  Orders  ....  127 

What  Is  Order? 145 

Order  and  Sacrament 148 

ix 


X  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Function  and  Jurisdiction     .    .    .• 152 

Restoration  of  the  Episcopate 159 

Recognition  op  Orders 161 

VI.  ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION l69 

Territorial  Jurisdiction .  176 

Subject-Matter  of  Jurisdiction 181 

Jurisdiction  of  Persons 193 

VII.  THE  REAL  AND  THE  IDEAL  IN  THE  PAPACY  .    .  201 

The  Bibucal  Basis  of  the  Papacy 202 

The  Historic  Right  of  the  Papacy 205 

Primacy  op  the  Pope  and  Its  Limitations      .    .  207 

VIII.  INFALLIBILITY,  TRUE  AND  FALSE   .....  221 

Infallibility  of  the  Reason 223 

Infalubility  of  the  Church 226 

Infallibility  of  the  Bible 236 

Apostolic  Tradition 241 

The  Threefold  Infallibility 243 

IX.  THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM 246 

The  Number  of  the  Sacraments 246 

The  Five  Minor  Sacraments 250 

The  Relation  of  the  Divine  Grace  in  the  Sac- 
raments TO  THE  Persons  of  the  Holy  Triniit  258 

Sacramental  Grace 258 

The  Sacramental  Work  op  the  Holy  Spirit     .  261 

The  Sacramental  Presence  of  Christ  ....  263 
The  Relation  of  the  Grace  Conferred  to  the 

Elements  Through  Which  It  Is  Conferred  266 

The  Conversion  of  the  Elements 266 

The  Eucharistic  Sacrifice 272 

Dramatic  Representation 278 

The  Body  of  Christ 280 

Christophanic  Presence 289 

Effects  of  the  Sacraments  Upor  Those  Who  Use 

Them 294 


CONTENTS  XI 

PAGE 

The  Ecstatic  State 295 

The  Preservation  op  Body  and  Soul    ....    297 

X.  CHURCH  AND  CREED 299 

The  Apostles'  Creed 299 

The  Nicene  Creed 301 

Symbols  of  Faith 306 

Revision  of  Symbols 308 

XI.  THE   THEOLOGICAL   CRISIS,    ESPECIALLY    IN 

AMERICA 315 

The  Advance  op  the  Church 316 

The  Real  Issues 319 

The  Seat  op  Authority  in  Religion 321 

Holy  Scripture 323 

Inerrancy 328 

The  Bible  as  a  Means  of  Grace 332 

Last  Things 334 

The  Middle  State       335 

Redemption  After  Death 341 

Salvation  of  Infants  and  Heathen      ....  345 

Progressive  Sanctification  After  Death  .    .    .  350 

The  Lost 360 

The  Christ    .    .    .    • 363 

The  Gain 364 

XII.  THE  INSTITUTIONAL  CRISIS  IN  THE  CHURCH 

OF  ENGLAND 366 

The   Decision  op  the  Archbishops  as  to  the 

Three  Ceremonies 366 

The  Anglo-Catholic  and  Puritan  Parties     .    .  368 

Reservation  op  the  Sacrament 370 

The  Principle  of  Uniformity 374 

Failure  of  the  Acts  of  Uniformity 376 

The  Royal  Commission  on  Ecclesiastical  Disci- 
pline      385 

Regulated  Liberty  of  Worship 388 


Xll  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

XIII.  THE  ENCYCLICAL  AGAINST  MODERNISM    .    .  393 

The  Syllabus 394 

The  Encyclical .  395 

The  Modernists 397 

Mediaevalism 402 

The  New  Inquisition 405 

XIV.  THE  GREAT  OBSTACLE  IN  THE  WAY  OF  A  RE- 

UNION OF  CHRISTENDOM 410 

The  Papal  Dominion  Not  Absolute       ....  410 

The  Threefold  Cord  of  Unity 412 

Unlimited  Jurisdiction  Condemned  by  History  413 

The  Right  op  Reformation  and  Revolution.    .  416 

A  Constitution ALisED  Papacy 421 

XV.  THE  PASSING  AND  THE  COMING  CHRISTIANITY  426 

Passing  Protestantism 428 

The  Mediating  Modernism 435 

The  Coming  Cathoucism 442 

INDEX       453 


CHURCH    UNITY 


CHURCH    UNITY 


CHRISTIAN  IRENICS 

Christian  Irenics  is  that  theological  discipline  which 
aims  to  reconcile  the  discordant  elements  of  Christianity, 
and  to  organize  them  in  peace  and  concord,  in  the  unity  of 
Christ's  Church.  It  is  one  of  those  new  theological  disciplines 
which  have  sprung  up  in  recent  times  on  the  border-lines  of 
the  older  theological  disciplines,  and  which  refuse  to  be  classi- 
fied under  any  of  them,  unless  they  are  so  enlarged  as  to  in- 
volve a  reconstruction  of  Theological  Encyclopedia.  Chris- 
tian Irenics  is  indeed  the  culminating  discipline  to  which 
all  others  contribute  their  noblest  results,  the  apex  of  the 
pyramid  of  Christian  theology,  to  which  all  the  lines  of 
Christian  scholarship  and  Christian  life  tend,  and  in  which 
ultimately  they  find  their  highest  end  and  perfection. 

Christian  Irenics  is  usually  classed  with  Symbolics — that 
theological  discipline  which  studies  the  oflBcial  expression 
of  the  faith  of  the  Church  as  it  is  stereotyped  in  symbols — 
that  is.  Creeds,  Confessions  of  Faith  and  Catechisms.  From 
this  point  of  view,  Irenics  takes  the  material  given  by  Sym- 
bolics, holds  forth  the  consensus  of  Christianity  as  the  basis 
of  peace  and  unity  already  attained,  and  then  studies  the 
dissensus  in  order  to  find  even  there  the  pathway  to  com- 
plete and  perfect  peace  and  unity.  It  is  thus  the  antithesis 
to  Polemics. 

Polemics  takes  its  stand  upon  one  symbol  or  group  of 
symbols,  representing  one  particular  denomination  of  Chris- 
tians, or  school  of  theology,  and  makes  war  upon  everything 

1 


2.    .    „  "     , CHURCH  UNITY 

that  differs  from  that.  It  aims  to  overcome  and  destroy 
all  dissent  from  that  one  particular  dissensus. 

On  the  contrary,  Irenics  refuses  to  regard  any  one  of  the 
particular  denominational  or  school  statements  as  final;  it 
rather  seeks  to  discover  the  truth  and  right  in  all  this  dis- 
sensus, and  to  eliminate  them  from  error  and  wrong;  and 
then  to  detect  the  lines  of  development  which  lead  on  to 
more  comprehensive  statements  in  which  dissensus  may 
eventually  be  transformed  into  consensus.  Accordingly, 
Irenics  cannot  be  attached  to  Symbolics  as  a  section  of 
Symbolics  or  as  a  mode  of  using  Symbolics.  It  is  much 
more  comprehensive.  If  it  finds  Symbolics  a  convenient 
base  on  which  to  begin  its  work,  it  soon  outgrows  Symbolics 
and  expands  on  all  sides.  It  is  evident  that  the  peace  of 
the  Church  cannot  be  effected  within  the  sphere  of  Christian 
symbols  alone,  since  in  some  respects  the  severer  problems 
are  in  the  sphere  of  Church  government  and  worship. 
Liturgies  and  ecclesiastical  canons,  therefore,  demand 
historic  and  comparative  study,  and  irenic  use,  as  well  as 
creeds,  confessions  and  catechisms. 

Polemics  and  Irenics  thus  far  have  the  same  reach.  It 
is  not  sufficient  that  there  should  be  peace  here  and  war 
there.  Polemics  is  war  all  along  the  line  of  institution, 
faith  and  morals.  Irenics  is  peace-making  over  the  whole 
field  of  theology. 

But  Polemics  has  its  limitations.  It  battles  for  the  denom- 
inational or  sectarian  institution  and  dogma  as  the  indubi- 
table and  the  final  statement,  and  with  a  determination  to 
destroy  all  that  is  discordant  therewith.  It  has  little,  if  any, 
interest  in  the  historical  origin  of  those  institutions  or  dog- 
mas. It  is  regarded  as  disloyal  to  subject  them  to  any  kind 
of  criticism.  It  is  counted  as  downright  treason  to  propose 
new  and  better  statements. 

Irenics,  on  the  contrary,  searches  all  the  statements  thor- 
oughly. It  must  know  exactly  how  they  came  into  historic 
being;  for  only  so  can  it  determine  how  much  of  them  was 
the  genuine  and  necessary  product  of  Christianity,  and  how 


CHRISTIAN   IRENICS  3 

much  was  due  to  human  frailty  and  ignorance,  or  to  un- 
christian motives  and  influences.  It  must  study  the  history 
of  the  statements  in  their  use  in  the  Church;  for  only  so  can 
one  go  back  of  the  traditional  interpretation  that  usually 
drifts  from  the  original  sense  through  change  in  the  meaning 
of  the  words,  the  unconscious  adaptation  of  old  terms  to 
new  situations,  and  the  continuous  reconstruction  of  dogma 
in  the  treatises  of  the  theologian  and  the  homilies  of  the 
pulpit.  Irenics  is  not  content  with  these  discordant  state- 
ments as  they  are.  It  cannot  say:  This  one  is  altogether 
true ;  the  others  are  altogether  false.  It  must  put  them  all 
alike  into  the  fires  of  criticism,  testing  them  in  every  way, 
to  eliminate  the  dross  of  error  from  the  golden  truth,  con- 
fident that  truth  is  indestructible  and  imperishable.  It 
tests  them  by  Holy  Scripture,  by  the  Reason,  by  Christian 
experience,  as  well  as  by  the  decisions  of  the  Church  in 
their  original  sense. 

Above  all,  Irenics  looks  to  the  future.  Its  right  to  live 
and  work  is  the  confidence  that  the  present  dissensus  of 
Christendom  will  not  endure,  that  those  who  disagree  from 
us  are  not  ordinarily  dishonest  or  wicked,  but  rather  that 
the  statements  which  we  cherish  are  not  sufficiently  clear, 
evident  and  convincing;  do  not  adequately  express  the  truth; 
do  not  yet  fully  contain  it;  but  urge  to  reinvestigation,  re- 
vision, new  and  better  statements  of  the  faith  of  the  Church. 

Thus  Irenics  uses  all  other  theological  disciplines.  It 
grasps  the  past,  the  present  and  the  future  in  its  compre- 
hensive vision.  Its  ideal  is  the  loftiest  and  the  noblest. 
It  is  sure  that  the  discord  and  division  of  Christianity  are 
temporary  and  transitional.  It  has  unflinching  confidence 
that  in  the  "dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  the  times"  God 
will  "sum  up  all  things  in  Christ"^  and  that  Christ's  prayer 
to  the  Father  for  his  disciples  will  surely  be  realised,  that 
"they  may  all  be  one;  even  as  Thou,  Father,  art  in  me  and 
I  in  Thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us."^ 

» Eph.  i.  10.  » John  «vii.  21. 


CHURCH  UNITY 


I.     ITS  TASKS 


(1)  The  first  task  of  Irenics  is  to  determine  the  essentials 
of  Christianity;  that  which  originally  gave  Christianity  the 
right  to  exist  as  a  new  religion  in  the  world ;  that  which  has 
remained  permanent  in  all  its  evolutions;  that  which  is  to 
be  found  wherever  and  whenever  and  in  whomsoever  Chris- 
tianity exists.  This  essence  of  Christianity  is  to  be  deter- 
mined by  the  elimination  of  all  that  is  local,  temporal  and 
formal  from  that  which  is  universal.  Here  Irenics  and 
the  science  of  religion  come  into  contact  and  healthful 
rivalry;  for  the  science  of  religion  seeks  the  essence  of 
Christianity  by  the  elimination  from  it  of  all  that  it  has  in 
common  with  other  religions.  Irenics  seeks  this  same 
essence  by  the  elimination  of  all  that  is  special  and  peculiar 
to  the  several  types  of  Christianity.  This  effort  is  funda- 
mental to  Irenics;  for,  unless  we  have  correctly  defined  the 
essence  of  Christianity,  we  may  mistake  the  limits  of 
Christianity. 

(2)  The  second  task  of  Irenics  is  to  determine  what  is 
Catholic.  That  is  Catholic  which  is  semper,  ubique,  et  ah 
omnibtis;  it  is  more  comprehensive  than  the  essence  of 
Christianity.  The  essence  is  not  only  original  to  Christian- 
ity; but  it  is  that  without  which  Christianity  does  not  ex- 
ist, and  it  distinguishes  Christianity  from  other  religions. 
The  Catholic  is  that  which  Christianity  stands  for  as  an 
organised  institution,  as  the  Church  of  Christ  in  the  midst  of 
the  world.  Christianity  may  exist,  and  in  fact  did  exist, 
with  all  that  is  essential,  without  Catholicity;  but  Catholicity 
is  an  inevitable  development  of  Christianity.  It  is  that 
which  is  common  to  Christianity  when  it  has  become  ma- 
ture, self-conscious,  an  organized  institution,  knowing  what 
it  stands  for,  and  able  to  vindicate  itself  in  institution  and 
doctrine.  This  universality  is  not  absolute:  it  is  relative; 
for  it  excludes  all  those,  whether  as  individuals  or  as  or- 
ganised communities,  who  cannot  or  will  not  know  and 


CHRISTIAN  IRENIC8  5 

maintain  the  common  heritage,  the  sacred  deposit  of  the 
Christian  Church.  It  is  necessary  to  determine  the  range 
of  CathoHcity,  or  else  we  may  include  within  the  field  of 
Irenics  those  who  have  no  rights  in  the  Catholic  Church, 
or  exclude  others  from  their  rightful  heritage,  and  so  mis- 
take thfe  scope  of  our  work.  On  the  one  hand,  there  are 
those  who  so  extend  the  area  of  Catholicity  as  to  include 
what  is  distinctively  Roman  or  Anglican,  and  then  exclude 
all  others  from  the  Catholic  Church.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  are  those  who  value  so  little  the  Catholic  heritage  of 
the  Church  that  they  resent  the  use  of  the  term  for  institu- 
tions and  doctrines  of  their  own  communion  which  are  truly 
Catholic.  A  man  or  a  communion  may  be  Christian  with- 
out being  Catholic,  and  they  may  be  Catholic  and  yet  fall 
far  short  of  the  ideal  of  Christ  and  Christianity. 

(3)  The  third  task  of  Irenics  is  to  determine  the  consensus 
of  Christianity.  This  is  much  wider  than  Catholicity,  and 
represents  a  subsequent  stage  of  development.  Consen- 
sus involves  the  organisation  of  different  types  and  parties 
within  the  Catholic  Church.  The  consensus  is  the  concord 
which  the  several  types  of  Christianity  have  attained  at  a 
particular  stage  in  its  development.  The  consensus  is  to 
be  distinguished  from  orthodoxy.  That  is  orthodox  which 
has  been  finally  defined  as  right  doctrine  by  the  supreme 
authority  of  the  Church.  If  we  could  limit  orthodoxy  to 
those  authoritative  determinations  to  which  all  bow,  con- 
sensus and  orthodoxy  would  be  co-extensive;  but  in  fact 
orthodoxy  as  commonly  used  is  particularistic,  because  all 
existing  Church  authorities,  and  all  Church  authorities  that 
have  been  in  the  world  for  centuries,  are  particular  and  not 
universal  jurisdictions. 

The  Greek  Church,  which  prides  itself  on  its  orthodoxy, 
is  more  comprehensive  than  others  in  this  respect;  for  it 
limits  orthodoxy  to  the  determinations  of  doctrine  by  the 
primitive  Councils  before  the  division  between  the  Eastern 
and  Western  Churches.  But  even  these  exclude  several 
Oriental  Churches.     The  only  orthodoxy  which  corresponds 


6  CHURCH  UNITY 

with  consensus  is  that  of  the  Nicene  Creed.  Hence  the 
Chicago-Lambeth  Quadrilateral  of  unity  declares  it  to  be 
**the  sufficient  statement  of  the  Christian  Faith."  The  con- 
sensus is  thus  more  limited  than  orthodoxy.  Eventually 
they  will  correspond;  but  not  until  the  Church  has  learned 
much  more  of  the  truth  than  it  possesses  at  the  present 
time. 

The  consensus  becomes  more  comprehensive  with  the 
progress  of  the  Church,  and  also  more  complex;  so  that  we 
have  to  distinguish  between  the  consensus  of  the  whole 
Church  at  different  periods  of  its  history  and  the  consensus 
of  two  or  more  particular  Churches.  Sometimes  the  con- 
sensus expands;  then  again  contracts;  but,  on  the  whole, 
the  consensus  enlarges  with  the  progress  of  Christianity. 
So  we  have  to  distinguish  between  temporary  consensus 
and  permanent  consensus;  between  entire  consensus  and 
partial  consensus.  There  is  a  special  consensus  of  the  Greek 
and  Oriental  Churches:  there  is  another  special  consensus 
of  the  Roman  Church  with  them.  There  is  a  consensus 
of  Protestantism,  and  there  is  a  consensus  of  the  Reformed 
Churches.  All  this  consensus,  the  consensus  of  the  entire 
Church  and  the  consensus  of  particular  Churches,  has  to  be 
determined;  for  it  indicates  the  unity  and  concord  thus  far 
attained,  the  stepping-stones  for  our  advance  into  the  more 
difficult  realm  of  discord.  The  consensus  of  Christianity 
is  vastly  more  important  than  the  dissensus.  No  one,  who 
has  not  studied  it,  can  estimate  how  vast  and  magnificent 
it  is  when  compared  with  the  dissensus.  It  is  like  a  mighty 
river,  flowing  on  in  majestic  silence,  whilst  its  surface  is 
disturbed  by  erratic  currents  and  noisy  wavelets,  stirred 
by  mischievous  or  angry  winds.  It  is  the  murmur  of  the 
ever-flowing  stream  as  compared  with  the  occasional  croak- 
ing of  frogs  upon  its  banks.  Taking  our  stand  upon  the 
consensus  of  Christianity,  we  may  thank  God  for  the  progress 
already  made,  and  look  forward  with  confidence  toward  a 
future  of  complete  unity  and  perfect  concord. 

(4)  The  fourth  task  of  Irenics  is  the  study  of  the  dissensus, 


CHRISTIAN  IRENICS  7 

in  order  to  find  even  there  the  truth  which  invokes  concord 
and  the  error  which  promotes  discord.  In  this  field  it  is 
the  exact  and  complete  antithesis  to  Polemics.  Polemics 
assumes  that  it  has  the  truth  already  in  possession,  and 
that  its  duty  is  to  defend  that  truth  against  all  assaults,  and 
attack  all  opposing  statements.  In  the  scholastic  age  of 
Protestantism,  Polemic  Theology  was  attached  to  Dogmatic 
Theology  on  the  theory  that  the  Confession  of  Faith  gave  the 
Christian  Faith;  and  it  was  the  duty  of  the  dogmatic  the- 
ologian so  to  state  its  doctrines  as  to  make  them  impreg- 
nable in  defence  and  invincible  in  attack.  In  theological 
schools  which  still  adhere  to  the  scholastic  methods  one  may 
still  find  chairs  of  Polemic  Theology. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  such  schools  should  oppose  re- 
vision of  denominational  standards  and  any  kind  of  new 
dogmatic  statement.  It  is  their  task  to  oppose  new  methods: 
new  statements,  new  doctrines,  everything  that  is  new. 
They  have  already  attained  the  final  knowledge  of  the  truth; 
they  have  nothing  more  to  learn  from  Bible,  Church  or  the 
progress  of  civilisation  in  the  world. 

But  Truth  cannot  be  boxed  up  and  put  away  for  safe 
keeping.  It  is  too  large  for  any  enclosure.  It  is  too  strong 
for  any  chains.  It  is  too  expansive  for  any  measures. 
Truth  appears  to  men  at  first  afar  off  with  gracious  invita- 
tion. Most  men  are  content  to  gaze  at  her  in  the  distance, 
conceive  her  in  certain  relations,  and  then  go  away  with  their 
photographic  ideals  and  develop  them  in  unchangeable  ab- 
stractions. Not  so  can  one  know  the  truth.  He  who  would 
truly  know  her,  must  go  up  to  her  with  courage  and  courtesy, 
follow  her  about  wherever  she  goes,  do  her  bidding  as  her 
faithful  knight,  run  after  her,  climb  after  her,  pursue  her 
in  the  heights  above,  in  the  depths  beneath,  and  never  lose 
sight  of  her,  for  she  will  lead  him  a  long  race,  testing  him  in 
every  way  before  she  gives  herself  to  him  as  the  bride  of  his 
soul.  Truth  is  a  sacred  deposit,  a  holy  tradition  in  the 
Church;  but  it  is  not  to  be  laid  away  in  a  napkin  to  be  re- 
stored to  the  Lord  exactly  as  it  was  received.     If  we  are 


8  CHURCH  UNITY 

faithful  servants,  we  will  use  it,  and  it  will  increase  in  our 
hands,  and  we  shall  transmit  to  our  successors  manifold 
gains. 

Truth  is  given  to  mankind  only  gradually.  He. has  to 
leam  it  little  by  little  in  the  progress  of  his  education.  So 
nations  and  races  are  educated  step  by  step  in  the  progress 
of  the  centuries.  All  institutions,  all  knowledge,  all  things 
living,  all  religions  undergo  this  heavenly  discipline;  for 
the  history  of  mankind  is  the  divine  education  of  our  race. 
When  Jesus  promised  his  disciples  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
would  lead  them  into  all  the  truth,  he  did  not  mean  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  would  lead  the  apostles  into  all  the  truth  and 
leave  that  truth  as  an  infallible  deposit  in  the  Church  to 
which  nothing  could  be  added  in  knowledge  and  statement. 
The  Holy  Spirit  did  not  guide  the  ante-Nicene  Church  until 
the  Nicene  Creed  was  given  as  the  final  statement  of  the 
Christian  faith,  and  then  leave  the  Church  to  itself  to  work 
out  the  hardest  problems  of  Christianity.  He  did  not  cease 
his  guidance  at  the  Reformation.  He  did  not  give  his  last 
word  at  the  Synod  of  Dort,  or  in  the  Formula  of  Concord, 
or  to  the  Westminster  Assembly,  or  through  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer,  or  at  the  Council  of  the  Vatican.  He  has 
not  left  the  Christian  world  in  a  chaos  of  discordant  theologies 
with  the  alternative  of  submission  to  an  infallible  pontiff. 
There  never  was  a  time  when  the  Holy  Spirit  was  more 
needed  by  Christians  than  in  our  age,  and  there  never  has 
been  a  time  when  the  Divine  Spirit  was  so  operative  as  in 
this  age  of  transition.  All  things  are  heaving  and  tossing 
in  the  throes  that  will  surely  give  birth  to  a  nobler,  grander 
Christianity. 

The  Church  of  Rome  recognised  this  when  it  stated  the 
dogma  of  an  infallible  pontiff  to  guide  the  Church  of  the 
present  and  the  future.  However  much  formal  error  there 
may  be  in  this  dogma,  it  yet  honours  the  divine  Spirit  as  the 
present  guide  of  the  Church,  speaking  infallibly  through  its 
supreme  head.  It  puts  to  shame  that  Protestant  scholasti- 
cism which  has,  so  far  as  it  could,  pushed  the  Holy  Spirit 


CHRISTIAN   IRENICS  9 

out  of  the  Church  by  its  insistence  upon  an  irreformable 
system  of  dogma.  An  irreformable  dogmatic  statement  in 
the  present  time,  even  if  given  by  the  Pope,  is  presumptively 
of  more  value  than  an  irreformable  dogmatic  statement  of 
the  sixteenth  or  seventeenth  century,  pronounced  by  any  as- 
sembly of  divines  or  the  decisions  of  any  council,  however 
venerable.  In  fact,  there  can  be  no  irreformable  dogma  in 
any  age.  All  dogma  is  reformable,  and  must  be  reformed 
in  the  progress  of  the  Church  as  she  advances  under  the 
guidance  of  the  Divine  Spirit  toward  the  ultimate,  the  all- 
comprehending  and  all-satisfying  truth. 

It  is  necessary  to  distinguish  between  truth  in  itself  and 
in  its  formal  expression.  Language  is  one  of  the  noblest 
endowments  of  mankind,  but  it  is  not  so  noble  as  the  mind. 
It  is  one  thing  for  the  mind  to  perceive  the  truth  and  to  con- 
ceive the  truth;  it  is  another  thing  to  state  it  in  speech  and 
in  writing.  The  statement  in  human  speech  can  only  be 
partial,  inadequate  and  liable  to  misinterpretation.  If  it  is 
necessary  to  have  infallible  dogma  in  stereotyped,  irreform- 
able credal  statements,  it  is  also  necessary  to  have  a  stereo- 
typed irreformable  Christianity  and  also  a  stereotyped,  irre- 
formable language.  A  Christianity  that  lives  and  grows, 
outlives  and  outgrows  all  ancient  statements.  A  creed 
stereotypes,  once  for  all,  the  faith  of  those  who  constructed 
it.  It  is  an  invaluable  historic  document.  But  those  who 
use  it  truly  do  not  confine  themselves  to  its  words  and  sen- 
tences; they  study  them  in  order  to  pass  through  the  words, 
the  sentences,  the  grammar,  the  logic,  the  rhetoric,  to  the 
inner  sense,  and  so  feed  upon  the  substantial  truth  which  they 
contain.  We  break  through  the  shells  to  get  at  the  precious 
kernels.  We  strip  off  the  husks  to  get  at  the  golden  grain. 
We  do  not  swallow  the  kernels  in  the  shells  or  the  grain  in 
the  husks.  So  we  cannot  feed  uj)on  the  truth  by  merely 
appropriating  the  ancient  dogmatic  statements.  We  must 
break  through  the  shells  of  these  statements  to  the  substantial 
verities. 

The  statements  are  the  shells,  the  husks,  necessary  to 


10  CHITRCH  UNITY 

conserve  the  truth,  necessary  for  its  transmission  and  for  its 
public  utterance  in  worship;  but  they  do  not,  they  cannot, 
satisfy  the  soul.  These  must  be  explained,  their  ancient 
terminology  has  to  be  translated  into  modem  phrases  ere 
they  can  give  nourishment  to  Christian  life.  Those  who 
insist  upon  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scripture  or  verbal 
subscription  to  Creeds  feed  on  shells  and  husks  whose  product 
is  a  dyspeptic  and  diseased  Christianity. 

No  one  knows  the  truth  who  only  knows  its  verbal  ex- 
pression. A  parrot  may  be  taught  that.  But  man  has  a 
mind  to  perceive  and  conceive  what  he  utters,  if  he  really 
knows  it — this  involves  that  he  must  digest  it  and  reproduce 
it  in  forms  of  his  own  thinking  and  acting.  He  utters  the 
words  of  the  Creed,  but  they  are  no  longer  merely  stereo- 
typed words;  they  are  illuminated  and  hallowed  by  the  vital 
meaning  given  to  them  in  Christian  experience  and  Chris- 
tian knowledge.  And  so  the  Creeds  no  longer  mean  ex- 
actly what  they  meant  to  those  who  composed  them,  but 
have  new  meanings  given  by  the  conceptions  of  the  present 
generation,  which  envelops  the  Creed  with  its  own  religious 
experience.  We  cannot  use  old  forms  profitably  unless  we 
give  them  new  meanings. 

This  adaptation  satisfies  in  those  historic  documents 
where  there  is  a  consensus  of  Christianity,  such  as  the  Ten 
Commandments,  the  Lord's  Prayer,  the  Apostles'  Creed 
and  the  Nicene  Creed;  but  it  does  not  suffice  where  there  is 
dissensus:  it  only  makes  the  dissensus  greater  and  the  con- 
fusion more  confounded.  We  ought  not  to  be  surprised, 
therefore,  that  throughout  Protestantism  the  Protestant 
Confessions  of  Faith  have  been  generally  cast  aside  as  in- 
adequate, and  that  the  movement  for  revision  and  new  creeds 
persists  in  spite  of  every  obstacle  and  all  resistance.  It 
must  be  evident  to  any  one  who  knows  the  currents  of  thought 
which  have  been  working  during  our  century,  and  which  are 
now  working  still  more  powerfully,  that  in  a  very  few  years 
not  a  single  Protestant  Confession  of  Faith  or  Catechism 
will  retain  binding  authority  in  any  denomination.     There 


CHRISTIAN   IRENICS  11 

is,  in  fact,  no  alternative  between  a  rally  on  the  Nieene  Creed 
as  proposed  by  the  Chicago-Lambeth  Conference  or  about 
those  new  statements  of  Faith  which  other  communions  are 
seeking.  Therefore  no  discipline  is  so  much  needed  as 
that  of  Irenics,  which  rises  above  all  denominational  partisan- 
ship, and  sectarian  bigotry,  and  seeks  solely  and  alone  "the 
truth,  the  whole  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth,"  for  therein 
alone  is  peace  and  unity. 

II.    ITS  SPIRIT 

(1)  Christian  Irenics  demands  for  its  successful  study, 
first  of  all,  a  courageous  qv£st  for  the  truth.  Courage  is  re- 
quired to  rise  above  the  prejudices  of  denominational  or 
school  theology.  Few  can  do  it;  few  will  dare  to  do  it;  for 
the  irenic  theologian  is  charged  at  once  with  being  unfaith- 
ful to  his  party  and  treacherous  to  his  companions  in  arms. 
Many  men  are  incapable  of  understanding  how  one  can  be 
faithful  to  the  Westminster  Confession  as  an  excellent  ex- 
pression of  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  Holy  Scripture, 
and  yet  think  that  it  may  be  revised,  or  that  better  and  more 
useful  statements  may  be  made.  They  forget  that  the  West- 
minster divines  first  tried  to  revise  the  Anglican  Articles 
of  Religion  which  they  had  subscribed;  and  then  abandoned 
that  effort  and  composed  the  Westminster  Confession  as 
a  substitute  for  them.  If  the  Westminster  divines  could 
honestly  do  that,  certainly  their  descendants  are  not  blame- 
worthy in  following  their  example,  first  trying  in  vain  to  re- 
vise their  Confession  and  now  seeking  a  new  statement. 
There  are  those  who  think  it  dishonest  for  a  Presbyterian 
to  be  anywhere  else  than  in  a  Presbyterian  denomination. 
They  forget  that  Bishop  Reynolds,  one  of  the  master  spirits 
of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  and  John  Wallis,  one  of  its 
clerks,  led  four-fifths  of  the  Presbyterian  pastors  of  England 
to  abide  in  the  Church  of  England,  as  did  Cartwright  and 
the  Puritan  fathers,  regarding  the  unity  of  the  Church  of 
England  as  more  important  than  their  Presbyterian  opinions. 


12  CHURCH  UNITY 

They  forget  that  Congregational  ists  and  Presbyterians  have 
been  passing  from  the  one  denomination  to  the  other  for 
more  than  a  century.  These  interchanges  will  become  still 
more  frequent  when  the  denominational  lines  become  thinner 
and  the  sectarian  fences  become  lower.  But  those  who 
identify  Christianity  with  their  sect  or  party  will  ever  fight 
against  such  changes  with  zeal  and  determination. 

If  it  is  difiicult  and  dangerous  to  seek  a  reunion  of  Protes- 
tants, how  much  more  is  it  dangerous  to  venture  upon  a  study 
which  looks  to  the  reunion  of  Protestantism  with  Rome  and 
aims  at  nothing  less  than  the  unity  of  entire  Christendom. 
The  hereditary  antagonism  and  dogmatic  hostility  of  Prot- 
estantism bursts  into  flame  against  such  an  effort.  I  under- 
stand it  well.  Not  a  drop  of  blood  in  my  veins  but  bounds 
with  indignation  against  the  wrongs  suffered  by  my  an- 
cestors at  the  hands  of  Rome.  Puritan  and  Huguenot, 
Dutch  and  German  Reformed,  all  the  strains  in  my  blood 
cry  out  against  priest  and  prelate.  No  man  could  have 
had  a  greater  dogmatic  hostility  to  Rome  than  I  when  the 
Vatican  Council  decreed  papal  infallibility.  But,  thank 
God,  that  hostility  is  all  gone,  and  I  now  seek  the  reconcili- 
ation of  the  Roman  Catholic  and  the  Protestant  Churches. 
I  am  not  unfaithful  to  my  ancestors,  or  to  my  teachers,  or 
to  my  Protestant  position  when  I  strive  to  rise  above  Protes- 
tantism to  a  higher  and  more  comprehensive  position  in  which 
alone  reconciliation  and  reunion  can  take  place.  Melanch- 
thon,  the  theologian  of  Germany,  certainly  had  that  hope, 
and  laboured  for  its  realisation;  and  other  heroic  men  like 
Bucer,  Calixtus,  Grotius,  Spinola  and  Leibnitz,  and,  I  may 
add,  Leo  XIII,  and  also  our  own  Schaff,  in  their  generations, 
have  continued  to  hope  and  labour  with  the  conviction  that, 
notwithstanding  every  obstacle  and  discouragement,  recon- 
ciliation would  eventually  be  accomplished. 

All  this  is  in  the  realm  of  external  courage.  But  still 
greater  courage  is  necessary  to  undertake  to  solve  problems 
and  difficulties  which  are  generally  regarded  as  insoluble. 
Many  who  would  gladly  labour  for  the  reunion  of  Christen- 


CHRISTIAN   IRENIC8  13 

dom  regard  it  as  visionary  and  impracticable,  if  not  im- 
possible, and  so  beyond  the  range  of  useful  effort. 

It  seems  to  most  men  presumptuous,  foolhardy  and  peril- 
ous. And  yet  these  hard  problems  must  be  undertaken,  if 
Irenics  is  to  be  a  useful  discipline.  It  is  useless  to  begin  un- 
less we  have  already  made  up  our  minds  to  honest  search 
for  the  truth  in  all  this  dissensus  of  Christianity.  But  if 
we  have  made  this  beginning,  we  ought  not  to  hesitate  to 
make  that  search  thorough,  and  to  carry  it  through  with 
courage.  What  if  the  reconciling  word  has  not  yet  been 
spoken;  the  ideal  truth  which  harmonises  differences  not 
yet  discovered  ?  That  is  no  good  reason  why  we  should  not 
pursue  the  quest.  We  know  that  there  is  such  a  truth  and 
word.  We  know  that  God's  Holy  Spirit  will  eventually 
guide  to  them. 

This  generation  has  facilities  of  investigation  not  known, 
or  only  partially  known,  to  the  Fathers.  Biblical  Criticism 
has  enabled  us  to  see  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  their  historic 
origin  and  relations,  and  so  hsis  cast  a  flood  of  new  light 
upon  the  Bible.  Historical  Criticism  has  given  us  a  new 
Church  History.  Science  and  Philosophy  have  greatly 
enlarged  and  improved  the  area  of  knowledge  and  the  meth- 
ods of  study.  The  inductive  method  is  gradually  transform- 
ing the  entire  range  of  Theology.  Every  problem  of  Theol- 
ogy has  been  put  in  new  light.  Search-lights  of  tremendous 
power  sweep  the  entire  field  of  history,  disclosing  a  multi- 
tude of  facts  unknown  to  the  Fathers.  Criticism  uses  X-rays 
which  enable  us  to  see  through  obstacles  impenetrable  to 
older  scholars.  The  microscopic  investigation  of  the  in- 
ductive method  accumulates  multitudes  of  truths  entirely 
unknown  to  the  men  of  the  sixteenth,  seventeenth  and  eigh- 
teenth centuries. 

Irenics  may  use  all  these  modern  resources  unknown  to 
the  Fathers,  and  use  them  without  presumption,  but  with 
courage,  for  the  successful  solution  of  the  most  difficult 
problems,  the  removal  of  the  discord  and  the  construction 
of  the  concord  of  Christendom. 


14  CHURCH   UNITY 

Brave  men  have  no  fear  of  obstacles :  they  rejoice  in  diffi- 
culties to  be  overcome.  The  true  scholar  is  glad  of  hard 
problems.  Has  the  theologian  nothing  to  do  but  to  work 
over  the  same  questions  that  the  fathers  have  solved  once 
for  all,  transmitting  a  sacred  deposit  without  usury?  Such 
a  task  may  suit  quite  well  lazy  priests  and  pedantic  scholars, 
but  not  men  of  power  and  courage.  Were  it  not  for  the 
enthusiasm  for  Christ  and  aspiration  after  God,  which  work 
mightily  in  the  best  of  mankind,  even  under  the  most  dis- 
couraging circumstances.  Traditionalism  would  have  long 
since  banished  true  men  from  the  Church  and  reduced  it  to 
an  asylum  for  drones  and  imbeciles.  There  are  problems 
in  theology  which  require  the  highest  courage  and  ability 
for  their  solution.  There  are  tasks  to  be  done  that  require 
the  courage  of  martyrdom. 

"Thank  God,  no  paradise  stands  barred 
To  entry,  and  I  find  it  hard 
To  be  a  Christian."  » 

Brave  scholars  will  eventually  solve  all  problems,  perform 
all  tasks.  It  is  certain  that  all  truth  will  be  discovered 
eventually — by  others,  if  not  by  us.  One  after  another 
difficulties  disappear  before  courageous  investigation.  Every 
problem  solved  is  an  encouragement  to  solve  another  and 
an  exercise  in  its  solution.  The  divine  Spirit  will  eventually 
lead  into  all  the  truth.  The  dissensus  of  Christianity  will 
be  decomposed,  and  out  of  it  a  consensus  will  arise  as  spring- 
time from  the  grave  of  winter. 

(2)  Irenics,  in  the  second  place,  demands  sympathy. 
Irenics  is  the  effort  to  discern  the  truth  and  state  the  recon- 
ciling word  that  will  remove  discord.  It  is  not  sufficient 
that  we  abandon  polemics  on  the  basis  of  the  particular 
statement  in  order  to  study  other  statements,  for  the  state- 
ments which  we  provisionally  put  aside  are  statements  which 
are  our  own,  which  we  have  appropriated  and  made  our 

*  Browning  in  Easter  Day  (end). 


CHRISTIAN  IRENICS  15 

Christian  experience.  How  can  we  study  the  other  state- 
ments impartially  by  looking  at  them  merely  from  the  out- 
side as  theoretical  truth? — for  theoretical  truth  can  never 
compete  with  experimental  truth.  It  is  necessary  for  us  to 
enter  into  the  very  heart  of  the  statements  of  others  in  order 
to  truly  know  them.  This  may  be  done  by  the  power  of 
human  sympathy.  Some  men  are  incapable  of  this.  They 
cannot  truly  state  the  views  of  an  opponent;  they  surely, 
though  often  unconsciously,  misrepresent  him.  Others 
are  so  sympathetic  that  if  they  provisionally  put  aside  their 
own  convictions  they  are  in  peril  of  assuming  the  convictions 
of  those  with  whom  they  come  into  sympathy.  Undoubtedly 
there  is  peril  in  the  sympathetic  study  of  other  statements 
than  our  own.  We  run  the  risk  of  being  won  over  by  our 
opponents.  No  one  should  attempt  it  who  has  not  so 
mastered  the  position  of  his  own  Church  that  it  possesses 
him,  and  has  become  a  part  of  his  very  nature.  Then  he 
may  bravely  undertake  to  enter  the  lines  of  his  opponents 
and,  by  the  free  and  full  exercise  of  his  Christian  sympathy, 
endeavour  to  think  as  they  think  and  feel  as  they  feel,  in 
their  worship,  in  their  doctrines  and  in  their  life.  This 
sympathy  must  be  free;  that  is,  knowing  his  own  convic- 
tions thoroughly,  he  must  yet  be  willing  to  yield  them  in 
whole  or  in  part  to  any  new  truth.  There  must  be  no  reser- 
vation of  prejudice,  bigotry  or  timidity.  Approaching  the 
opponents  with  such  open-mindedness  under  the  white  flag 
and  with  the  olive  branch,  he  will  be  received  commonly  as 
a  friend  and  a  brother,  and  he  will  thus  in  a  measure  think 
and  feel  with  them,  and  the  truth  that  they  have  will  be 
recognised  and  eliminated  from  the  error  which  envelops 
it.  He  will  soon  learn  that  there  is  more  truth  in  common 
in  the  opposing  statements  than  any  one  supposed ;  that  there 
is  truth  in  possession  of  the  opponent  which  he  is  glad  to  learn, 
and  add  to  the  truth  which  he  had  in  possession  before. 
He  will  learn  with  sadness  that  there  is  error  and  inadequacy 
enough,  and  insufficiency  of  statement  on  all  sides.  Such 
has  been  my  experience. 


16  CHURCH   UNITY 

Early  life  among  the  Methodists  gave  me  a  sympathy 
with  Arminianism,  although  I  deliberately  followed  Calvinism. 
Four  years  of  study  in  Germany  enabled  me  to  sympathise 
with  Lutheranism.  Many  years  of  labour  as  a  Presbyterian 
minister  and  Professor  of  Theology  enabled  me  to  understand 
thoroughly  the  doctrine,  polity  and  worship  of  the  Presby- 
terian and  other  Reformed  churches.  Many  vacations  in 
England  enabled  me  to  overcome  early  prejudices  against 
liturgy  and  ceremony  in  public  worship.  Several  residences 
in  Rome  gave  me  the  opportunity  to  enter  into  sympathy 
with  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  and  worship.  And  so  God's 
Holy  Spirit  has  guided  me  through  sympathetic  study  of  all 
these  divisions  of  Christendom  to  lose  hostility  to  them,  and 
to  regard  them  with  an  irenic  spirit,  and  with  a  determina- 
tion to  do  all  in  my  power  to  remove  prejudices,  misstate- 
ments and  misinterpretations  and  to  labour  for  the  reunion 
of  them  all  in  one  organic  whole,  the  one  Church  of 
Christ. 

It  is  impossible  to  understand  and  state  with  accuracy  the 
theology  of  any  other  religious  body  than  the  one  to  which 
you  belong,  unless  you  have  lived  with  them,  and  thought  with 
them,  and  worshipped  with  them  in  sympathetic  union.  You 
may  go  to  a  great  cathedral,  admire  its  nave  and  its  choir, 
its  dome  and  its  towers,  its  shapely  windows  and  impressive 
gates;  but  no  one  really  knows  a  cathedral  until  he  has 
entered  it  with  a  throng  of  worshippers,  taken  part  in  its 
ceremonies  and  in  its  liturgy,  and  experienced  that  uplift  of 
soul,  that  sublime  unity  in  divine  worship  to  which  all  the 
glories  of  architecture  and  sculpture,  painting  and  ceremony, 
music  and  song  contribute  each  its  strain.  So  you  cannot 
know  any  Church  or  denomination  or  sect  merely  from  the 
outside.  It  always  presents  to  the  enemy  its  warlike,  of- 
fensive side;  to  the  stranger  its  cold  exterior,  even  if  clothed 
with  beauty  and  elegance.  Only  the  friend  is  admitted 
to  the  warm,  cheerful,  happy  interior,  where  there  is  peace 
and  unity  in  the  home  life.  No  one  can  reconcile  who  is 
not  a  friend  of  both  parties.     Irenics  must  know  thoroughly 


CHRISTIAN   IRENICS  17 

well,  and  in  sympathetic  friendship,  all  parties  to  the  debate 
of  Christianity,  and  all  the  various  opinions  to  be  harmo- 
nised. 

(3)  Another  necessity  for  Irenics  is  comprehensiveness. 
If  one  would  know  anything  thoroughly,  he  must  know  it 
within  as  well  as  without,  and  on  all  sides  and  from  every 
point  of  view.  One  of  the  greatest  gains  in  modern  theology 
is  the  recognition  that  the  several  different  temperaments 
of  mankind  must  have  each  its  own  special  phase  of  repre- 
sentation in  theology;  that  the  historic  differences  in  the 
Church  are  due  in  great  measure  to  racial  peculiarities  and 
national  idiosyncrasies.  Nothing  of  importance  can  be  ac- 
complished in  Biblical  Theology  unless  we  recognise  the 
different  types  of  thinking  in  the  biblical  authors.  The 
problem  in  Irenics,  as  in  Biblical  Theology,  is  to  reconcile 
these  differences  in  a  higher  unity;  is  to  recognise  that  the 
temple  of  Christian  knowledge  is  built  up  of  many  sides, 
and  these  not  always  square;  of  many  lines,  and  these  not 
always  straight;  of  infinite  complexity  and  intricacy  of  design 
and  execution.  The  great  Architect  of  the  universe  has  not 
constructed  the  temple  of  wisdom  in  which  all  mankind  are 
to  worship  in  such  a  simple  and  uniform  way  that  any  tyro 
can  understand  it  and  reproduce  it.  He  has  made  it  for  the 
study,  the  admiration,  the  joy  of  the  ages,  and  of  the  noblest 
and  best  of  all  the  ages.  Men  often  think  they  know  the 
truth  if  they  get  a  sight  of  it  from  one  point  of  view,  from 
one  angle  of  vision,  and  they  resent  the  statements  of  those 
who  have  seen  it  from  other  points  of  view  and  other  angles ; 
and  so  their  knowledge,  while  true  and  correct  so  far  as  it 
goes,  is  imperfect,  inadequate  and  incomplete.  That  is 
really  in  great  measure  the  reason  of  the  discord  of  Christian- 
ity. The  truth  has  been  only  partially  discerned;  it  has  not 
been  seen  in  all  its  relations  and  proportions;  it  is  not  yet 
fully  known. 

When  one  ascends  the  Gorner  Grat,  he  looks  up  at  Monte 
Rosa,  brilliant  with  everlasting  snow,  from  base  to  summit, 
a  pure  priest  in  that  ancient  sanctuary  of  God  where  nature 


18  CHURCH  UNITY 

rendered  its  worship  ere  man  was  born  on  the  earth.  And 
yet  Monte  Rosa  does  not  impress  him  so  powerfully  as  the 
massive  Matterhorn  or  the  shapely  Weisshorn,  and  he  can 
hardly  accept  the  testimony  that  Monte  Rosa  is  in  fact 
the  monarch  of  all.  But  if  he  go  to  the  other  side,  de- 
scend into  Italy  and  view  Monte  Rosa  from  the  lakes  or 
Monte  Generoso!  Ah!  then  he  will  see  that  imperial  moun- 
tain rising  up  high  above  all  others,  the  most  majestic,  the 
most  commanding,  the  most  glorious  of  that  multitude  of 
royal  and  princely  snow  peaks  which  extend  in  unbroken 
continuity  far  beyond  the  range  of  human  vision.  No  one 
really  knows  Monte  Rosa  who  has  not  seen  it  from  the  south. 
Monte  Rosa  is  not  the  only  thing  which  appears  differently 
when  viewed  from  the  south  of  the  Alps.  There  is  such  a 
thing  as  an  ultramontane  theology.  No  one  knows  Theology 
thoroughly,  who  has  not  studied  it  from  the  ultramontane 
side.  We  can  know  it  thoroughly  only  by  looking  at  it  on 
all  sides. 

Provincial  theologies  have  been  the  bane  of  the  Christian 
Church  since  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries,  and 
even  mediaeval  peculiarities  are  persisted  in  and  insisted  upon 
still  in  some  quarters  now  that  we  have  entered  the  twen- 
tieth century.  In  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries 
every  town  in  Europe  was  walled,  and  every  citizen  might 
be  called  to  arms  by  a  night  alarm  to  defend  his  household. 
But  now  those  walls  have  been  levelled  with  the  ground, 
or  changed  into  gardens  and  parks.  They  no  longer  ex- 
clude the  stranger,  but  invite  him.  And  yet  in  the  Church 
the  exclusive  policy  continues  for  all  who  cannot  or  will  not 
subscribe  to  provincial  conditions  of  membership.  When 
one  has  abandoned  the  provincial  point  of  view,  and  learned 
to  look  at  the  Church,  its  institutions  and  theology,  from 
the  point  of  view  of  the  great  world,  he  cannot  regard  it  as 
of  any  serious  consequence  that  he  is  excluded  from  a  Lord's 
table  which  is  reserved  for  Baptists  alone;  or  that  his  piety 
is  suspected  because  he  cannot  be  a  Methodist,  or  use  the 
religious  exercises  of  certain  evangelists;    he  is  not  given 


CHRISTIAN  IRENICS  19 

over  to  Satan  if  he  is  regarded  as  a  heretic  because  he  will 
not  subscribe  to  a  dogma  held  by  provincial  Presbyterians; 
or  if  he  is  censured  as  schismatic  because  he  refuses  a  cere- 
mony peculiar  to  Anglo-Catholics.  His  hope  of  salvation 
is  not  blasted  if  he  cannot  in  good  conscience  submit  to  a 
jurisdiction  recognised  by  Roman  Catholics  only. 

The  Church  of  Christ  and  Christian  Theology,  if  they  are 
to  be  truly  Christian,  must  not  exclude  any  one  that  is  Christ*s, 
but  must  include  and  comprehend  all  that  is  really  Chris- 
tian. God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  Son  for  its 
salvation.  Christ  by  his  incarnation  identified  himself  with 
the  human  race^  and  therefore  the  Church  must  be  a  truly 
cecumenicaLy  a  world-wide  Church,  welcoming  all  men  of 
every  nation  and  every  race  into  her  bosom.  Christian 
Theology  should  be  a  theology  which  will  not  repel  scholars, 
but  attract  them  and  satisfy  them,  and  at  the  same  time  be 
so  clear  and  evident  in  that  which  it  holds  forth  as  its  Creed, 
that  the  entire  race  of  man  can  sincerely  believe,  and  hon- 
estly appropriate  it  and  practise  it  in  their  life  and  ex- 
perience. 

(4)  Irenics  has  the  noblest  of  tasks,  the  highest  ideals. 
These  cannot  be  accomplished  so  soon  as  one  hopes.  The 
times  are  in  God's  hands.  The  goal  may  be  distant,  but 
it  is  sure;  it  is  ever  near  as  our  final  aim,  our  highest  aspira- 
tion, the  beloved  ideal.  Therefore  'patience  is  essential  to 
success  in  our  work.  Impatience  impairs  it,  and  imperils 
it.  Think  of  the  long-suffering  and  infinite  patience  of 
our  God,  with  whom  a  thousand  years  are  as  a  day  or  a 
watch  in  the  night.  If  he  were  a  polemic  God,  he  would 
finish  things  in  a  day,  exterminate  a  multitude  of  men  in 
their  wickedness  and  error  for  the  salvation  of  an  elect  few 
possessed  of  truth  and  right.  But  he  is  an  irenic  God,  and 
waits  thousands  of  years  to  save  not  an  elect  few  but  the 
human  race  as  a  whole.  He  is  slack  to  visit  with  vengeance 
because  he  is  busy  in  redemption.  With  what  wondrous 
patience  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  dealt  with  his  disciples, 
and  ever  continues  to  deal  with  his  Church!     How  she  must 


20  ^  CHURCH   UNITY 

grieve  his  soul  with  her  weakness  and  folly,  her  backslidings 
and  her  apostasies,  her  fraternal  strife  and  failure  from  his 
ideals! 

"  Patience,  why,  'tis  the  soul  of  peace.     Of  all 
The  virtues  'tis  the  nearest  kin  to  heaven. 
It  makes  men  look  like  gods.     The  best  of  men 
Who  e'er  wore  earth  about  Him  was  a  sufferer; 
A  soft,  meek,  patient,  humble,  tranquil  spirit, 
The  first  true  gentleman  that  ever  lived."  ' 

An  angelic  choir  sang  on  the  birthday  of  our  Lord:  "Glory 
to  God  in  the  highest,  and  on  earth  peace,  among  men  in 
whom  he  is  well  pleased."^  And  Jesus  in  his  farewell  dis- 
courses said  to  his  apostles:  "Peace  I  leave  with  you,  my 
peace  I  give  unto  you."^  Have  these  words  been  but  mock- 
eries through  the  Christian  centuries?  Nay;  they  give  the 
Christian  ideal.  God  and  Christ  and  the  holy  angels  calmly 
and  with  divine  patience  await  the  evolution  of  the  centuries 
which  shall  give  birth  to  the  reunion  of  the  Church,  the  peace 
of  the  world,  the  full  salvation  of  mankind.  Therefore 
patience  is  required  of  any  truly  Irenic  Theology. 

The  Church  has  not  in  fact  overlooked  its  Irenic  calling 
as  the  peacemaker  of  the  world;  but  it  has  often  blundered 
in  its  efforts.  Unity  has  been  sought  in  orthodox  doctrine, 
in  one  supreme  jurisdiction,  in  uniformity  of  worship,  in  a 
national  religion;  and  intolerance  to  heresy,  schism,  dissent, 
has  involved  mankind  in  numberless  religious  wars  and 
fraternal  strifes.  What  matters  it — the  Inquisition  in  Rome, 
the  Star  Chamber  in  London,  the  fagot  in  Geneva,  the  prison 
at  Leipzig,  the  whipping  post  at  Salem,  ostracism  in  Phila- 
delphia?— they  are  only  different  forms,  varying  with  time 
and  circumstance,  of  the  same  intolerance  which  for  centu- 
ries has  been  the  bane  of  Christianity.  An  eminent  Puritan 
of  the  sixteenth  century,  in  reply  to  a  Roman  Catholic  divine, 
who  charged  Protestants  with  being  persecutors  like  other 
heretics,  said  in  1580:   "Nay — they  punish  none  but  filthy 

'Thomas  Dekker.  'Luke  ii.  14.  'John  xiv.  27. 


CHRISTIAN  IRENICS  21 

idle  idolaters  and  hypocrites."*  Such  a  spirit  justifies  the 
persecution  of  any  religious  opponent.  Many  generations 
of  civil  wars  and  religious  controversy  were  necessary  in 
Great  Britain  to  bring  about  toleration  of  dissent  from  the 
national  Churches.  The  United  States  was  the  first  nation 
to  try  the  experiment  of  religious  equality  at  the  expense  of 
a  national  Church  and  a  national  religion.  We  are  still  in 
the  experimental  stage  with  it.  Our  century  has  shown 
great  advances  toward  Church  Unity.  The  German  Re- 
formed and  Lutherans  came  together  and  constituted  the 
Evangelical  Church  of  Germany.  The  Anglican  Church 
has  proposed  the  Quadrilateral  of  unity  to  the  Christian 
world.  Leo  XIII  has  written  several  irenical  letters. 
"Come,  let  us  reason  together,"  he  has  said.  And  the 
Anglican  archbishops  and  the  Oriental  patriarchs  have 
reasoned  with  him.  They  have  not  yet  found  the  basis  of 
Unity;  but  they  have  greatly  narrowed  the  lines  of  division, 
and  Christian  love  has  overflowed  these  lines. 

We  must  have  patience  still.  The  Fathers  waited  patiently 
for  centuries  while  they  made  their  mistaken  efforts.  Let 
us  avoid  their  mistakes  and  continue  their  efforts.  We  may 
have  long  to  wait;  but  not  so  long  as  they.  We  are  nearer 
the  goal.  Great  world-wide  movements  are  now  at  work 
behind  and  beneath  all  human  efforts.  They  are  the  im- 
pulses of  the  Divine  Spirit  breaking  up  the  crust  of  the  exist- 
ing divisions  to  fuse  them  into  a  new,  greater  and  more 
glorious  Christianity.  They  are  the  heart-beats  of  the 
Church  of  Christ,  which  is  moved  as  never  before  by  a  sen- 
sitiveness to  all  that  transpires  in  her  members,  even  in  the 
humblest  and  feeblest  and  most  despised  parts,  and  by  an 
inappeasable  longing  for  the  unity  and  harmony  of  the  en- 
tire organism  of  Christianity,  and  by  a  presage  in  holy  love 
of  the  chosen  of  the  Lord  that  her  Bridegroom  is  near. 

(5)  We  may  have  gone  thus  far  in  Irenics  with  entire 
success,  and  with  complete  accuracy,  but  something  is  still 
needed  to  accomplish  that  concord  and  unity  which  is  our 
»Fulke'8  "Discovery,"  1580,  p.  313. 


22  CHURCH  UNITY 

final  goal.  A  supreme  motive,  an  invincible  impulse  is  in- 
dispensable for  so  great  a  work;  nothing  else,  and  nothing 
other  than  Christian  love — that  love  which  moved  the  Father 
to  give  His  Son  for  the  world;  that  love  which  moved  the 
Son  to  die  for  our  salvation;  that  love  which  seeks  not  its 
own,  which  is  not  easily  provoked,  which  rises  above  faith 
and  its  doctrines,  hope  and  its  ambitions,  which  covers  a 
multitude  of  sins,  which  sees  with  inerrant  vision  all  that  is 
good  and  true,  and  which  organises  them  into  a  living,  loving 
and  glorious  whole.  Love  is  the  great  material  principle 
of  Irenics,  which  will  as  surely  effect  the  Reunion  of  the 
Church  as  faith  accomplished  its  Reformation 


II 

THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH 

There  are  existing  in  the  Church  at  the  present  time,  as 
there  have  been  for  centuries,  a  number  of  varying  specu- 
lative theories  about  the  Church.  These  theories  are  rep- 
resented in  a  number  of  parties  or  schools.  They  all  claim 
to  adhere  to  the  Biblical  doctrine  of  the  Church,  and  they 
are  doubtless  sincere  in  the  claim.  In  fact,  all  of  these 
parties  and  schools  have  unfolded  the  Biblical  doctrine  by 
logical  deduction  and  practical  application,  and  have  used 
other  sources  than  the  Bible  for  this  purpose.  This  is 
quite  legitimate.  The  "Chicago-Lambeth  Articles ". state 
that  the  historical  episcopate  should  "be  locally  adapted 
in  the  methods  of  its  administration  to  the  varying  needs  of 
the  nations  and  peoples  called  of  God  into  the  unity  of  the 
Church";  but  that  is  true  also  as  to  every  other  part  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church.  It  should  be  in  all  respects  locally 
and  temporally  adapted.  Parties  and  schools  are  the  instru- 
ments in  the  hands  of  the  divine  Spirit  for  making  experi- 
ments in  adaptation,  in  testing  and  verifying  theories,  as 
the  Church  advances  in  her  mission  in  this  world. 

I  shall  not  attempt  to  give  the  Church  doctrine  of  the 
Church.  The  Church  doctrine  of  the  Church  is  defined 
in  the  Creeds,  Liturgies  and  confessional  books  of  the 
several  organised  communions  in  Christendom.  This  doc- 
trine is  based  on  Holy  Scripture;  but  it  is  also  based  on  tra- 
ditions transmitted  in  historic  succession  from  the  teachings 
and  institutions  in  the  great  apostolic  sees  of  Rome,  Alex- 
andria, Ephesus,  Antioch  and  Jerusalem.  This  doctrine 
is  also  a  resultant  of  the  logical  unfolding  of  Biblical  and 
traditional  doctrine  in   its  adaptation   to  different  nations 

23 


24  CHURCH  UNITY 

and  epochs.  All  this  Church  doctrine  may  be  implicitly 
involved  in  the  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture,  may  be  a  legiti- 
mate, logical  deduction  and  practical  application  of  Biblical 
material.  But  it  is  not  Biblical  doctrine.  The  Biblical 
doctrine  is  strictly  limited  to  the  express  statements  of  Holy 
Scripture.     To  this  express  teaching  I  shall  limit  myself. 

The  Biblical  doctrine  of  the  Church  cannot  be  ascertained 
by  a  merely  superficial  citation  of  proof-texts  from  King 
James'  Version,  or  even  from  the  Greek  Textus  Receptus 
and  the  Massoretic  text  of  the  Old  Testament;  all  of  which 
contain  later  accretions  and  dislocations  of  Biblical  material. 
I  shall  endeavour  to  give  the  Biblical  doctrine  as  based  on 
a  rigorous  and  thorough  criticism  of  the  Biblical  material. 

The  New  Testament  Doctrine  of  the  Church,  like  most 
New  Testament  doctrines,  is  built  on  Old  Testament  doctrine. 
Those  who  attempt  to  understand  New  Testament  doctrine 
by  itself  alone  may  be  compared  to  those  who  look  at  a  beau 
tiful  castle  whose  foundations,  supporting  hillsides  and  ad- 
joining valleys  are  all  shrouded  in  mist  and  cloud.  We  shall 
begin  the  study  of  the  New  Testament  doctrine  of  the  Church 
by  presenting  the  Old  Testament  foundations.  The  New 
Testament  doctrine  of  the  Church  was  constructed  by  using 
the  technical,  historical  terms,  prepared  by  divine  providence 
in  the  Old  Testament  dispensation. 

I.  THE  TERM  CHURCH 

The  most  important  term  is  iKK\r)crLa,  rendered  by  "church" 
in  the  English  New  Testament.  The  late  Dr.  Hort  thinks 
that  the  words  "church'*  and  "congregation,"  both  legiti- 
mate renderings  of  iKfcXrjaia,  have  been  so  involved  in  later 
partisan  conceptions  that  it  is  impracticable  to  attain  the 
pure  Biblical  idea  of  eKKk-qaCa  without  discarding  them  and 
transliterating  by  ecclesia  itself.^  I  agree  with  him  as  to  the 
facts  of  the  case.  But  this  situation  is  a  common  one  in 
Biblical  Theology.  The  method  which  I  have  endeavoured 
*  The  Christian  Ecclesia,  p.  2. 


THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH  25 

to  pursue,  in  all  my  use  of  technical  Biblical  terms  in  Bibli- 
cal Theology^  is  a  different  one,  namely,  to  purge  the  Biblical 
words  of  their  later  partisan  bias  and  theoretic  accretions, 
and  set  them  in  their  genuine  Biblical  light  and  colour. 
Our  battleships  are  not  discarded  when  their  bottoms  have 
been  fouled  by  tropical  marine  deposits.  We  put  them 
in  the  dry-docks  and  clean  them,  and  they  become  as  power- 
ful and  useful  as  ever. 

1.  For  the  study  of  eKKXr^aCa  we  get  little  light  from  classic 
Greek.  Thayer-Grimm  says:  "Among  the  Greeks,  from 
Thucydides  down  (it  means),  an  assembly  of  the  people 
convened  at  the  public  place  of  council  for  the  purpose  of 
deliberating."  It  is  used  in  this  sense,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, only  in  Acts  xm.,  32,  39,  41.  In  the  Greek  ver- 
sions, the  Septuagint,  Aquila,  Symmachus  and  Theodotion,  it 
translates  usually  the  Hebrew  TTlfp.  This  Hebrew  TTlp  is, 
however,  more  comprehensive  than  eKKXr^ala.  It  has  the 
same  fundamental  meaning  of  "assembly,"  but  this  may 
be  of  an  army,  a  crowd,  a  band  of  robbers,  as  well  as  a 
political  and  religious  assembly.  It  also  means  the  act  of 
assembling  and  the  body  itself  as  assembled.  In  the  Pen- 
tateuch, the  earliest  part  of  the  Old  Testament  translated  in- 
to Greek,  TTIp  is  rendered  by  the  Greek  avvaf^cof^rf  in  Genesis, 
Exodus,  Leviticus  and  Numbers.  These  are  the  chief 
passages  in  the  Law  where  the  Hebrew  religious  community, 
organised  and  meeting  for  worship,  is  described.  Deuter- 
onomy has  a  different  usage;  iKK\7j<Tia  is  used  for  ^Hp  in  all 
passages  (Deut.  ix.  10;  x.  4;  xviii.  16;  xxiii.  1,  2,  3,  8;  xxxi.  30) 
but  one  (v.  19  [22]),  where  avvaycoyrj  is  used.  This  shows 
for  Deuteronomy  the  hand  of  another  and  later  translator 
than  for  the  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  phrase, 
iKKXrjaia  KvpLov  (i.  e.,  Yahweh),  begins  in  Deut.  xxiii.  1  (2), 
2  (3),  3  (4),  8  (9). 

In  the  Prophets,  the  second  layer  of  the  canon,  ^Hp  is  ren- 
dered by  (Tvvaycoyrj  in  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  often ;  in  Isaiah 
the  word  is  not  used.  But  in  the  translation  of  the  Minor 
Prophets  eKKXTjaia  is  used  in  the  two  passages,  Micah  ii.  5; 


26  CHURCH  UNITY 

Joel  ii.  16 — the  only  ones  in  the  collection  using  ^Hp.  In  the 
prophetic  histories  in  all  passages  the  same  translation  by 
eKKKr}aLa  is  made.  It  is  interesting  to  note,  however,  that 
G^  gives  iKKKrjala  in  one  passage,  Ezek.  xxxii.  3;  Aquila  in 
five  passages,  Ezek.  xxiii.  47;  xxvi.  7;  xxxii.  3,  22,  23;  and 
Theodotion  in  six  passages,  Ezek.  xxiii.  47;  xxvi.  7;  xxvii.  27; 
xxxii.  3,  22,  23,  showing  an  increasing  tendency  in  later  times 
to  the  use  of  iKKkr^aia.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  trans- 
lator of  the  chronicler,  who  in  thirty-eight  passages  uses 
iKfc\rj(Tia  for  TTIp.  So  also  in  the  Psalter  iKKXrjaia  is  used 
eight  times;  in  Proverbs  once;  in  Job  once;  <jvva^(ii^'r]  is 
used  only  in  Ps.  xl.  11  (10),  and  Prov.  xxi.  16,  for  special 
reasons. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  in  the  earlier  translations  of 
the  Old  Testament  into  Greek  TTlpwas  rendered  hyavvar^ay^ri, 
in  the  later  translated  by  eKKXrjcrLa.  We  are  thus  at  the  very 
foundations  of  our  study  brought  face  to  face  with  the  fact 
that  avvaycoyi]  was  an  older  Greek  term  than  i/CK\rjcr{a  for 
Israel  as  an  organized  religious  body,  and  so  we  should  not 
be  surprised  that  it  has  continued  among  the  Jews  to  the 
present  time.  The  collective  Israel  is  now,  as  ever  since  the 
Pentateuch  was  translated  into  Greek,  known  as  "  the 
Synagogue."  The  collective  Christianity  has  been  known 
as  "the  Church,"  the  earlier  Christians  preferring  this 
term  to  "synagogue."  The  two  terms  are,  indeed,  synony- 
mous terms,  with  little  practical  difference  in  meaning. 

More  common  in  the  Pentateuch  than  bT]p  is  HiP,  "con- 
gregation, company  assembled  by  appointment,"  used  115 
times  in  the  priest's  code,  and  translated  by  away  my  7). 
There  are  two  passages  in  which  mS?  and  yT]p  are  used 
together  (Exod.  xii.  6;  Numb.  xiv.  5),  translated  in  Greek 
by  one  word,  avpaycoyij.     Probably  these  are  conflations. 

We  thus  have  in  the  Old  Testament  the  use  of  mp  and 
^^pf  terms  to  indicate  the  entire  religious  community  of 
Israel.  These  were  rendered  by  "  synagogue  "  and  "  church. " 
^vvaycoyq  came  first  to  have  a  local  sense  of  a  single  com- 
munity, and  thus  probably  iKKKrjala  became  more  common 


THE  BIBLICAL   DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH  27 

among  the  Greek  Jews  for  Israel  as  a  whole,  although  the 
Palestinian  Jews  adhered  to  the  older  word.  It  was  natural, 
therefore,  for  Christians  to  use  eKKkrjaCa  by  preference,  which 
itself  was  also  used  for  the  local  assembly  as  well  as  the  whole 
body.  This  double  sense  of  both  words  was  established 
in  the  Old  Testament. 

2.  The  New  Testament  doctrine  of  the  eKKXr^aCa  must  be 
built  on  the  teaching  of  Paul.  There  are  only  three  cases 
in  the  Gospels  in  which  the  word  iKK\r)<Tia  is  put  in  the  mouth 
of  Jesus,  viz..  Matt.  xvi.  17-19;  xviii.  15-20.  It  is  improb- 
able that  in  either  case  Jesus  used  the  Aramaic  XTTIp.  It 
seems  altogether  probable  that  he  used  in  the  former  case 
"kingdom"  or  "house,"  for  either  of  these  words  is  more 
in  accordance  with  the  context,  and  the  imagery  of  the  pass- 
age and  later  references  to  it.  In  the  latter  case  "the  dis- 
ciples" or  "brotherhood"  was  probably  used  for  a  similar 
reason.  Jesus,  as  we  shall  see  later  on,  used  "kingdom" 
where  Paul  used  iKK\7)aCa} 

3.  The  use  of  eKKXrjo-ia  apart  from  Paul  and  his  dis- 
ciples is  confined  to  James  v.  14;  Rev.  i.  4 — iii.  22,  nineteen 
times;  Rev.  xxii.  16;  III  John  6,  9,  10;  always  of  the  local 
iKKXrjata,  where  crvvaycofyi]  would  have  been  equally  appro- 
priate. 

4.  'EKKXrja-ia  is  used  in  the  book  of  Acts  twenty-three  times. 
In  three  of  these  the  reference  is  to  the  Greek  assembly 
(viz.,  xix.  32,  39,  41),  as  we  have  seen;  six  to  the  church  in 
Jerusalem  (viii.  1,  3;  xi.  22;  xii.  1,  5;  xv.  4);  four  to  the 
church  at  Antioch  (xi.  26;  xiii.  1;  xiv.  27;  xv.  3);  one  each 
to  the  church  at  Ephesus  (xx.  17)  and  at  Caesarea  (xviii.  22); 
thrice  to  a  number  of  churches  in  different  cities  (xiv.  23; 
XV.  41;  xvi.  5). 

Several  passages  need  special  attention.  The  phrase 
"the  whole  Church,"  Acts  v.  11;  xv.  22,  seems  to  compre- 
hend the  whole  Christian  body.  So  also  "  the  church  through- 
out all  Judea  and  Galilee  and  Samaria,"  Acts  ix.  31;  for 
Christianity  had  not  extended  farther  at  that  time.  Stephen, 
*  See  Briggs,  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  pp.  190  f . 


28  CHURCH  UNITY 

Acts  vii.  38,  refers  to  the  "  Church  in  the  wilderness,"  plainly 
indicating  the  continuity  of  the  Church  of  his  day  with  the 
Church  of  that  day.  But  the  most  important  passage  is 
Acts  XX.  28,  where  Paul  warns  the  elders  of  the  church  at 
Ephesus:  "Take  heed  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock, 
in  the  which  the  Holy  Spirit  hath  made  you  overseers,  to 
feed  the  Church  of  the  Lord,  which  he  acquired  with  his  own 
blood." 
As  I  have  said  elsewhere: 

"There  is  a  great  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  reading  here.  The 
external  authority  of  MSS.,  versions  and  citations  is  not  decisive. 
Tischendorf,  DeWette,  Meyer,  and  the  mass  of  German  critics  read 
'Church  of  the  Lord';  Scrivener,  Westcott  and  Hort,  and  the  leading 
British  scholars  read  *  Church  of  God.'  If  any  unprejudiced  man  will 
compare  the  great  mass  of  authorities  cited  on  both  sides,  he  will  be 
convinced  that  there  is  ample  room  for  difference  of  opinion.  The 
context  favours  *  Church  of  the  Lord.'  This  reading  is  also  favoured  by 
the  fact  that  it  is  a  unique  reading  and,  therefore,  difficult.  Nowhere 
else  in  the  New  Testament  do  we  find  the  phrase  *  Church  of  the  Lord.' 
The  scribe  in  doubt  would  follow  the  usual  phrase.  *The  Church 
of  the  Lord*  is  only  found  here  in  the  New  Testament,  but  it  is  the  same 
in  idea  as  the  Church  of  which  Christ  is  the  head,  according  to  the  Epistle 
to  the  Ephesians.  *  The  Church  of  God '  is  a  favourite  expression  of  Paul 
in  his  epistles.  Indeed,  the  word  'church'  is  a  Pauline  word.  In  his 
theology  it  takes  the  place  of  the  kingdom  of  the  gospels  and  of  the  Jew- 
ish Christian  writers.  'The  Church  of  the  Lord'  has  been  acquired 
as  a  possession  by  him.  The  means  by  which  this  precious  acquisi- 
tion has  been  made  is  his  blood.  This  blood,  according  to  the  reading 
which  has  been  adopted,  is  the  blood  of  the  Messiah.  We  are  reminded 
of  redemption  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  the  lamb  without  blemish  and 
without  spot,  of  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter.  Here,  as  there,  the  blood  is 
doubtless  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  new  covenant  as  represented 
in  the  cup  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Parallel  with  the  Church  is  the  flock. 
This  parallelism  is  favoured  by  the  words  of  Jesus  which  connect  flock 
and  kingdom,  and  it  is  in  accordance  with  the  teachings  of  Jesus  when 
he  appointed  his  apostles  to  act  as  shepherds  of  the  flock.  The  Church 
of  the  Lord  is  the  flock  of  the  Messiah  which  is  to  be  fed  by  shepherds 
appointed  by  him.  These  shepherds  were  constituted  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  so  that  they  are  shepherds  of  the  flock  of  Christ,  by  the  author- 
ity of  Christ.  The  elders  of  the  local  church  at  Ephesus  are  addressed, 
according  to  the  context.  The  apostle  rises  from  the  conception  of 
the  local  church  and  flock  to  the  universal  Church  and  flock,  and  recog- 


THE   BIBLICAL   DOCTRINE   OF  THE   CHURCH  29 

nises  that  the  elders  of  the  local  church  are  shepherds  of  the  universal 
Church  of  the  Lord.  They  are  overseers,  who  have  the  flock  in  charge. 
The  elders  are  bishops  in  the  church."* 

Dr.  Hort  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  Paul  here  has  in 
mind  Ps.  Ixxiv.  2,  where  the  Septuagint  uses  o-ui/a 70)7?;,  and 
that  Paul  does  not  hesitate  to  substitute  eV/cXr/o-ta  for  it. 

"Of  course,  in  strictness  the  words  belong  only  to  the  one  universal 
Christian  ecclesia;  but  here  they  are  transferred  to  the  individual 
ecclesia  of  Ephesus,  which  alone  these  elders  were  charged  to  shep- 
herd. In  the  epistles  we  shall  find  similar  investment  of  parts  of  the 
universal  ecclesia  with  the  high  attributes  of  the  whole.  This  trans- 
ference is  no  mere  figure  of  speech.  Each  partial  society  is  set  forth 
as  having  a  unity  of  its  own,  and,  being  itself  a  body  made  up  of  many 
members,  has  therefore  a  corporate  life  of  its  own;  and  yet  these  at- 
tributes could  not  be  ascribed  to  it  as  an  absolutely  independent  and, 
as  it  were,  insular  society;  they  belong  to  it  only  as  a  representative 
member  of  the  great  whole."  ^ 

This  passage  just  considered,  in  which  Luke  puts  the 
word  eKicXTjaCa  ILvpCov  in  the  mouth  of  Paul,  may  introduce 
us  to  PauFs  doctrine  of  the  eKKXrjala.  We  may  study  it  in 
its  three  stages  of  growth  in  the  Pauline  epistles:  (1)  in  the 
earlier  group  of  epistles,  Galatians,  I  and  II  Thessaloni- 
ans,  I  and  II  Corinthians,  Romans ;  (2)  in  the  epistles  written 
during  the  Roman  captivity,  Ephesians,  Philippians,  Colos- 
sians,  Philemon;  and  (3)  in  the  pastoral  epistles,  I  and  II 
Timothy,  Titus. 

(1)  The  term  "church"  is  used  three  times  in  Galatians, 
four  times  in  Thessalonians,  thirty-one  times  in  Corinthians 
and  five  times  in  Romans.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 
Paul  speaks  of  the  local  assembly  or  synagogue  (i.  2,  22); 
but  also  of  these  local  churches  as  in  Christ  (i.  22),  and  of 
the  organised  body  of  Christians  as  the  Church  of  God 
which  he  had  persecuted  (i.  13).  Paul  does  not  in  the 
Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  rise  above  the  local  assembly 
or  synagogue,  but  he  teaches  that  these  local  assemblies  are 

» Briggs,  The  Messiah  of  the  Apostles,  1895,  pp.  80-83. 
'  The  Christian  Ecclesia,  1898,  pp.  102-3. 


30  CHURCH  UNITY 

organised  in  God  the  Father  (I  Thess.  i.  1;  II  Thess.  i.  1), 
and  that  they  are  churches  belonging  to  God,  in  union  and 
communion  with  God  (I  Thess.  ii.  14;  II  Thess.  i.  4).  This 
is  based  on  the  Old  Testament  usage  of  the  Church  of 
Yahweh   (eKKXrjcria  KvpLOv). 

In  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  Paul  commonly  refers 
to  the  local  church,  especially  to  the  local  church  at  Corinth, 
to  which  he  writes  as  an  organised  assembly  of  Christians, 
I  Cor.  i.  2;  vi.  4;  xiv.  4,  5,  12,  23;  II  Cor.  i.  1;  and  also 
as  assembled  in  a  local  sense,  I  Cor.  xi.  18,  22;  xiv.  19,  28, 
35;  xvi.  19.  He  also  speaks  of  the  churches  of  Galatia, 
I  Cor.  xvi.  1;  of  Asia,  I  Cor.  xvi.  19;  of  Macedonia,  II  Cor. 
viii.  1;  of  local  churches  without  name,  I  Cor.  iv.  17;  vii. 
17;  xi.  16;  xiv.  33,  34;  II  Cor.  viii.  18,  19,  23,  24;  xi.  8,  28; 
xii.  13.  These  churches  are,  on  the  one  side,  churches  of 
God  (I  Cor.  i.  2,  xi.  16;  II  Cor.  i.  1)  and,  on  the  other, 
churches  of  saints  (I  Cor.  xiv.  33,  "consecrated,  holy  ones"). 
But  Paul  also  conceives  of  the  whole  body  of  Christians  as 
"the  Church  of  God."  It  was  this  Church  that  he  perse- 
cuted (I  Cor.  XV.  9),  and  this  Church  that  we  are  to  consider 
in  not  giving  occasion  of  stumbling  (x.  32).  In  the  first 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  Paul  conceives  of  the  Church  as 
endowed  by  God  with  a  ministry.  God  Himself  hath  set 
in  the  Church  the  apostles,  prophets,  teachers,  powers,  gifts 
of  healing,  helps,  governments,  kinds  of  tongues  (xii.  28). 
It  is  evident  that  he  is  not  thinking  of  an  order  of  the  min- 
istry in  a  later  sense,  but  of  special  graces  given  by  God 
to  certain  men  whom  He  has  given  to  the  Church  for  its  edi- 
fication. He  thinks  of  this  Church  thus  endowed  as  the 
body  of  Christ.  The  body  is  here  conceived  under  the 
image  of  a  human  body  with  a  human  head.  Christ  is  the 
head,  all  Christians  are  members  of  his  body,  having  a 
diversity  of  gifts.  There  are  feet,  ear,  eye,  nose,  feeble  and 
uncomely  parts,  comely  parts.  There  should  be  no  schism 
in  the  body.  "In  one  Spirit  we  were  all  baptised  into  the 
one  body."  It  is,  therefore,  not  an  invisible  organism;  it  is  a 
visible  organisation.     There    must    be    harmony    and    co- 


THE   BIBLICAL   DOCTRINE  OF  THE   CHURCH  31 

operation  of  all  members — no  schism  on  the  one  side,  and 
no  dishonouring  of  weak  and  uncomely  parts  on  the  other. 

In  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  Paul  speaks  of  the  church 
in  Cenchrese  (xvi.  1);  a  local  church  (xvi.  5);  churches  (xvi. 
4);  churches  of  Christ  (xvi.  16);  the  whole  church  of  which 
Gains  was  a  minister  (xvi.  23).  The  only  additional  phrase 
is  "church  of  Christ"  in  place  of  "Church  of  God"  of  the 
other  epistles. 

(2)  The  doctrine  of  the  Church  in  the  epistles  of  the  im- 
prisonment shows  a  decided  advance.  There  is  little  refer- 
ence to  local  churches.  Paul  speaks  of  churches  in  general 
(Phil.  iv.  15);  the  church  in  Laodicea  (Col.  iv.  15, 16);  a  local 
church  (Philem.  2).  The  doctrine  of  the  whole  Church  is 
in  the  apostle's  mind.  He  recalls  that  he  persecuted  the 
Church  (Phil.  iii.  6);  God  gave  Christ  to  be  head  over  all 
things  to  the  Church  (Eph.  i.  22) ;  Christ  is  especially  head  of 
the  Church  (v.  23) ;  the  Church  is  subject  to  Christ  (v.  24) ; 
Christ  loves  the  Church  and  gave  himself  up  for  it  (v.  25); 
Christ  nourisheth  it  (v.  29);  God  is  to  receive  glory  in  the 
Church  (iii.  21);  the  mystery  of  Christ  and  the  Church  is 
great  (v.  32);  the  Church  makes  known  the  manifold  wis- 
dom of  God  to  the  angels  (iii.  10);  Christ  is  to  present  it 
to  himself  a  glorious  Church  (v.  27) ;  he  is  head  of  the  body, 
the  Church  (Col.  i.  18);  his  body  is  the  Church  (i.  24). 
In  these  epistles  Christ  is  conceived  as  enthroned  in  heaven 
as  the  head  of  the  Church  and  as  the  head  over  all  things 
to  the  Church.  The  Church  is  subject  to  him  as  wife  to 
husband.  He  loves  it,  gave  himself  for  it,  and  nourisheth 
it,  and  will  eventually  present  it  to  himself  a  glorious  Church. 
The  Church  on  earth  is  to  glorify  God,  and  the  Church  in 
heaven  will  make  known  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God  to 
the  angels. 

(3)  The  use  of  i/cKXrjo-La  in  the  pastoral  epistles  is  confined 
to  the  first  Epistle  to  Timothy.  "Let  not  the  church  be  bur- 
dened" (I  Tim.  V.  16),  doubtless  refers  to  the  local  church. 
The  church  of  God,  of  which  the  bishop  is  to  take  care 
(I  Tim.  iii.  5),  may  be  the  local  church,  as  it  is  parallel  with 


32  CHURCH  UNITY 

his  own  house.     But  the  church  of  the  living  God  (I  Tim. 
iii.  15)  must  be  the  whole  Church. 

"The  apostle  advises  Timothy  'how  men  ought  to  behave  themselves 
in  the  house  of  God,  which  is  the  Church  of  the  living  God,  the  pillar 
and  ground  of  the  truth.'  The  house  of  God  is  here,  as  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Ephesians,  the  household  of  God,  the  family  of  which  God  is 
the  father.  As  the  household  there  was  parallel  with  commonwealth 
and  temple,  so  here  it  is  the  Church  of  the  living  God.  The  Church 
of  the  living  God  takes  the  place  of  the  Church  of  God  of  the  earlier 
Paulinism,  and  the  Church  of  the  later  Paulinism.  God  is  the  living 
God  here  in  order  that  the  Church  may  be  conceived  of  as  a  living 
Church,  composed  of  living  men,  behaving  themselves  properly  in  the 
family  of  God.  A  living  Church  is  similar  to  the  living  temple  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  The  Church  is  conceived  of  as  the  pillar  and 
ground  or  stay  of  the  truth.  This  is  a  later  conception  of  the  Church. 
In  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  the  temple  was  composed  of  living  stones 
and  of  living  buildings.  The  stones  and  the  buildings  were  parts  of 
the  structure.  Here  the  whole  Church  is  conceived  of  as  a  pillar  on 
which  the  truth  is  lifted  up  and  as  a  ground  or  stay  upon  which  it 
rests.  The  figure  is  probably  that  of  a  platform  or  basis  supported  by 
a  pillar.  The  Church  is  this  basis  and  its  pillar.  The  truth  is  that 
which  rests  upon  this  base,  and  is  lifted  up  before  the  world  on  it. 
The  truth  that  is  thus  lifted  up  and  supported  is  the  living  truth;  it 
is  the  mystery  of  godliness;  it  is  the  Messiah  himself,  as  set  forth  in 
the  lines  of  an  ancient  credal  hymn,  which  follows.  It  is  possible  that 
the  writer  has  in  mind  the  Messianic  conception  of  the  Old  Testament 
that  the  Messiah  is  the  cope-stone  which  finishes  the  structure  of  the 
new  temple,  which  is  brought  forth  with  shoutings,  *  Grace,  grace  unto 
it.*  The  Messiah  as  the  cope-stone  here  would  be  the  antithesis  to  the 
Messiah  as  the  comer-stone  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  The 
Messiah,  thus  exalted  as  the  cope-stone,  the  head  of  the  Church,  is  the 
revelation  of  the  mystery  of  God."^ 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  may  be  added  here,  not  as 
written  by  Paul,  but  as  having  a  conception  nearer  to  the 
later  Paulinism.  Heb.  ii.  12  quotes  Ps.  xxii.  23  (22),  and 
so  represents  the  New  Testament  Church  and  the  Old 
Testament  Church  as  one  in  praising  God.  Heb.  xii.  23 
represents  the  Church  of  the  first-born,  the  martyrs,  as  a 
heavenly  Church. 

»  The  Messiah  of  the  Apostles,  1895,  pp.  228,  229. 


THE   BIBLICAL   DOCTRINE  OF  THE   CHURCH  33 

We  may  now  sum  up  the  Pauline  use  of  eV/cXT/crta :  It  is  the 
Church  of  God,  of  the  living  God,  of  Christ,  of  the  Lord,  as  in 
God  the  Father  and  in  Christ.  It  is  the  body  of  Christ 
over  which  Christ  reigns  in  love  and  in  nourishing  care. 
The  Church  holds  him  up  as  her  truth.  The  Church  is  a 
Church  of  saints  on  earth  and  of  the  first-born  martyrs  in 
heaven.  The  earthly  Church  glorifies  God.  The  heavenly 
Church  tells  angels  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God.  The 
Church  of  the  New  Testament  is  the  historical  continuation 
of  the  Church  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  entrance  to 
the  Church  is  by  baptism  in  the  Spirit.  Its  officers  are  given 
by  God.  The  one  Church  embraces  a  number  of  local 
churches,  in  different  cities  and  provinces.  The  Church 
is  one.  Nowhere  is  there  more  than  one  church  in  one  place. 
The  local  church  is  the  representative  of  the  whole  Church 
in  the  particular  city.  The  Church  is  divine — it  is  in  God 
and  Christ  and  the  divine  Spirit.  It  is  holy — it  is  composed 
of  baptised  and  consecrated  ones.  It  is  one  with  the  Old 
Testament  Church  and  with  the  heavenly  Church.  There 
is  nothing  to  justify  the  distinction  between  an  invisible 
and  a  visible  Church. 

II.    THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD 

As  we  have  proceeded,  it  has  become  evident  that  we  can- 
not limit  the  New  Testament  doctrine  of  the  Church  to  the 
use  of  the  word  i/cKXrjo-La.  Other  terms  are  constantly  ap- 
pearing in  the  parallelism  of  the  writings.  These  terms  are 
also,  in  all  cases,  Old  Testament  terms.  The  most  im- 
portant of  these  is  kingdom  of  God  {PatnXela  rov  Oeov). 
This  is  the  earliest  word  in  the  Old  Testament  used  of  Israel 
as  an  organization.  It  is  found  in  a  poetic  source  of  the 
Ephraemitic  story  of  the  Exodus  (Exod.  xix.  6).  God  says 
to  Israel:  ''Ye  shall  be  unto  me  a  kingdom  of  priests'* 
(D^Un^  nS^DD).  The  nation  as  a  whole,  in  its  unity  as  an 
organisation,  is  constituted  by  God  at  once  a  kingdom  and 
a  priesthood,  a  royal  priesthood  and  a  priestly  kingdom. 


34  CHURCH  UNITY 

This  was  not  the  establishment  of  a  dynasty  of  kings.  That 
came  later  in  the  dynasty  of  David.  It  was  not  the  insti- 
tution of  a  hierarchy  of  priests.  That  also  came  later  in 
the  hierarchies  of  Levi  and  Aaron.  But  the  whole  nation 
as  an  organism  was  constituted  a  kingdom  and  instituted 
a  priesthood  under  God  their  king.  This  conception  of 
Israel  as  a  kingdom  of  God  persists  in  the  poetry  and  prophecy 
of  the  Old  Testament.  The  Messianic  prediction  conceives 
of  the  Messiah  as  the  king  of  the  kingdom,  in  whom  the 
dynasty  of  David  and  the  royalty  of  Yahweh  alike  culminate. 
It  was,  therefore,  eminently  natural  and  proper  that 
Jesus  the  Messiah  should  use  the  term  "kingdom"  for  the 
organisation  he  came  to  establish  in  the  world.  The  king- 
dom in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  is  both  historical  and  escha- 
tological.  As  historical,  it  is  the  kingdom  of  grace  in  this 
world;  as  eschatological,  it  is  the  kingdom  of  glory  either 
in  heaven  or  of  the  last  days  which  follow  the  second  ad- 
vent of  our  Lord.  On  Peter  as  the  rock  this  kingdom  is  to 
be  built.  Peter  has  the  keys  to  open  its  gates  and  to  close 
them.  The  gates  of  Hades  will  not  prevail  over  this  king- 
dom; it  is  eternal  (Matt.  xvi.  17-19^).  This  kingdom  had 
its  historical  beginning  in  heaven  when  Jesus  ascended  and 
sat  down  on  his  throne  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father, 
welcomed  by  all  heaven  as  the  Lion  of  Judah  (Rev.  v).  It 
began  on  earth  when  the  Holy  Spirit  descended  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost  and  organised  the  kingdom.  Peter  thus  in- 
terpreted the  event  when  he  said: 

"This  Jesus  did  God  raise  up,  whereof  we  all  are  witnesses.  Being 
therefore  exalted  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  having  received  of 
the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  hath  poured  forth  this, 
which  ye  see  and  hear.  For  David  ascended  not  into  the  heavens; 
but  he  saith  himself,  'The  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord,  "Sit  thou  on  my 
right  hand,  till  I  make  thine  enemies  the  footstool  of  thy  feet.'"  Let 
all  the  house  of  Israel  therefore  know  assuredly  that  God  hath  made 
him  both  Lord  and  Messiah,  this  Jesus  whom  ye  crucified."  (Acts 
ii.  32-36). 

*  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  pp.  324  f.,  where  all  the  passages  in  the  gos- 
pels are  discussed. 


THE  BIBLICAL   DOCTRINE  OF  THE   CHURCH  35 

From  this  time  on  throughout  the  New  Testament  writ- 
ings Jesus  is  not  only  the  Messiah,  the  king;  but  he  is  also 
called  Lord,  a  term  which  in  the  Jewish  usage  is  applied  to 
God,  but  which  in  Christian  usage  is  applied  almost  exclu- 
sively in  the  New  Testament  to  Jesus  Christ/ 

Peter  in  his  first  epistle  applies  the  fundamental  passage 
of  the  Old  Testament,  as  to  the  kingdom  of  priests,  to  the 
Christian  body  when  he  writes: 

"  But  ye  are  an  elect  race,  a  royal  priesthood,  a  holy  nation,  a  people 
for  (God's)  own  possession,  that  ye  may  show  forth  the  excellencies  of 
him  who  called  you  out  of  darkness  into  his  marvellous  light:  which  in 
time  past  were  no  people,  but  now  are  the  people  of  God:  which  had 
not  obtained  mercy,  but  now  have  obtained  mercy"  (I  Peter  ii.  9-10). 

It  is  evident  that  Peter  sees  the  entire  Christian  community 
as  the  royal  priesthood  of  the  Old  Testament  institution, 
now  under  the  reigning  king  and  high  priest  Jesus  the 
Messiah. 

All  faithful  Israel  carried  over  the  kingdom  of  God  of  the 
Old  Dispensation  into  the  kingdom  of  God  under  the  New 
Dispensation.  The  unfaithful  Jews  were  as  truly  excluded 
from  that  kingdom  for  their  unbelief  and  refusal  to  recognise 
the  Messianic  king,  as  were  Esau  and  his  descendants  in 
patriarchal  times,  and  the  Samaritan  schism  in  post-exilic 
times.  The  Church  of  Christ  is  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
there  is  no  other  kingdom  of  God  under  the  New  Testa- 
ment dispensation.  The  kingdom  of  Christ  is  in  true  his- 
torical continuity  to  the  kingdom  of  God  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. It  abides  in  the  world  as  the  kingdom  of  grace;  it 
continues  in  the  heavens  and  subsequent  to  the  second  ad- 
vent as  the  kingdom  of  glory.  This  is  the  kingdom  over 
which  Christ  reigns  as  Lord,  according  to  Paul,  having  "the 
name  which  is  above  every  name;  that  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven  and  things  on  earth 
and  things  under  the  earth,  and  that  every  tongue  should  con- 
fess that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father" 

*  Messiah  of  the  Apostles,  pp.  86  f . 


36  CHURCH  UNITY 

(Phil.  11.  9-11).  "For  he  must  reign  till  he  hath  put  all  his 
enemies  under  his  feet"  (I  Cor.  xv.  25). 

It  is  evident  from  PauFs  use  of  the  terms  "lordship"  and 
"reign"  of  Christ,  that  he  conceives  of  the  organized  Chris- 
tian community  as  a  kingdom,  just  as  the  other  New  Testa- 
ment writers  do.  But,  in  fact,  Paul  always  uses  the  term 
"kingdom"  in  an  eschatological  sense,  and  uses  "church" 
for  the  Christian  organisation  in  this  worid.^  It  is  quite 
significant  that  those  New  Testament  writings  which  use 
"kingdom"  for  the  Christian  organization  in  this  worid, 
such  as  the  four  gospels,  I  Peter,  the  eariier  Hebrew  apoca- 
lypses, do  not  use  the  word  "church";  while  the  epistles  of 
Paul,  and  James,  and  the  apocalypse  of  the  Epistles,  which 
emphasise  "church,"  use  "kingdom"  in  an  eschatological 
sense.  There  is  a  mixed  usage  only  in  the  book  of  Acts, 
which  may  be  due  to  the  variation  between  sources  and 
authors.  It  is  interesting  also  to  note  that  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  uses  "kingdom"  for  the  organisation  in  this  worid 
(Heb.  xii.  28),  but  "church"  only  for  the  Old  Testament 
organisation  and  the  assembly  of  the  martyrs  in  heaven. 
It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  there  is  a  documentary  difference 
in  the  use  of  the  terms  "kingdom"  and  "church"  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  therefore  we  should  be  cautious  in 
drawing  distinctions  between  them. 

I  may  say  that  I  have  carefully  examined  all  the  uses  of 
these  and  cognate  terms  in  both  Testaments,  and  as  a  result 
of  my  investigations  I  declare  that  nothing  can  be  more 
false  than  the  distinction  between  "kingdom"  and  "church" 
asserted  by  many  moderns.  These  are  chiefly  men  who  are 
displeased  with  the  historic  Church  and  seek  refuge  in  the 
kingdom  as  taught  by  Jesus  Christ,  in  the  conceit  that  this 
is  something  larger  and  better.  In  fact,  "church"  and 
"kingdom"  differ  only  as  synonymous  terms.  There  is 
nothing  of  importance  which  can  be  asserted  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  which  may  not  be  also  asserted  of  the  Church  of 
(jod,  if  we  faithfully  use  Biblical  material  without  specula- 
*  Messiah  of  the  Aposdes,  pp.  538  f. 


THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH  37 

tion  and  theorising.  Jesus  is  king  of  the  kingdom,  and  he 
reigns  over  it,  subduing  all  external  enemies  under  his  feet, 
or  transforming  them  by  his  grace  into  citizens  of  his  king- 
dom. He  is  also  the  head  over  all  things  to  his  Church.  The 
Church  and  the  kingdom  are  coextensive;  both  are  Old  Testa- 
ment institutions  and  New  Testament  institutions;  both  are 
institutions  of  this  world,  and  both  are  eternal  institutions 
of  the  world  to  come;  both  are  organisations  in  the  midst 
of  the  world  and  of  the  universe;  both  will  eventually  subdue 
and  absorb  the  world  and  also  the  universe;  the  one  is  as 
spiritual  as  the  other,  the  one  is  as  external  as  the  other. 

III.    OTHER  BIBLICAL  TERMS  FOR  CHURCH 

1.  The  term  "people"  is  equal  in  antiquity  to  the  term 
"kingdom."  It  is  found  in  the  same  poetic  source  of  the 
Ephraemitic  writer  already  mentioned;  it  is  also  in  the 
ancient  lyrics,  and  is  a  favourite  conception  of  Deuter- 
onomy and  the  earlier  prophets.  The  fundamental  thought 
connected  with  the  term  "people"  is  redemption.  "Ye 
shall  be  a  peculiar  treasure  unto  me  from  among  all  peoples" 
(Exod.  xix.  5);  "the  people  thou  hast  gotten"  (Exod.  xv. 
16);  "Yahweh's  portion  is  his  people;  Jacob  the  lot  of 
his  inheritance"  (Deut.  xxxii.  9).  It  is  found  in  that  grand 
picture  of  the  consolidation  of  the  nations  under  Yahweh's 
dominion  given  in  Isaiah:  "Israel  shall  be  the  third  with 
Egypt  and  with  Assyria,  a  blessing  in  the  midst  of  the  earth : 
for  that  Yahweh  Sebaoth  hath  blessed  them,  saying,  *  Blessed 
be  Egypt  my  people,  and  Assyria  the  work  of  my  hands, 
and  Israel  my  inheritance'"  (Isa.  xix.  24,  25).  Little  use 
is  made  of  this  conception  of  people  in  connection  with  the 
Christian  community,  doubtless  because  it  implies  at  the 
bottom  a  national  particularism,  done  away  with  in  the  New 
Dispensation.  The  term  is  used  just  enough  to  show  that 
the  Christian  community  inherits  the  Old  Testament  con- 
tinuity in  this  regard.  So  Peter  says,  in  the  passage  already 
cited,  that  Christians  are  "a  people  for  (God's)  own  pos- 


38  CHURCH  UNITY 

session";  "which  in  time  past  were  no  people,  but  now  are 
the  people  of  God"  (I  Peter  ii,  9,  10).  And  in  the  Epistle 
to  Titus  it  is  said:  "Our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ;  who  gave 
himself  for  us,  that  he  might  redeem  us  from  all  iniquity, 
and  purify  unto  himself  a  people  for  his  own  possession, 
zealous  of  good  works"  (Titus  ii.  14).  So  Paul  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Galatians  (vi.  16)  uses  the  sacred  term  "Israel  of 
God"  for  the  Christian  community. 

2.  The  prophet  Isaiah  uses  the  image  of  the  "vine"  in  a 
vineyard  to  set  forth  the  conception  of  the  relation  of  Yah- 
weh  to  his  people  (Isa.  v.  1-7),  and  this  becomes  a  still 
more  beautiful  symbol  in  the  eightieth  Psalm.  No  wonder 
that  it  became  a  favourite  symbol  for  carving  upon  the  en- 
trance to  Jewish  synagogues.  Jesus  uses  it  to  set  forth  the 
vital  organic  relation  between  himself  and  his  disciples. 
"I  am  the  vine — ^ye  are  the  branches,"  said  the  Master 
(John  XV.  5).  The  prophet  Ezekiel  (xvii.  22-24)  uses  a 
similar  image  when  he  selects  the  cedar  of  Lebanon,  and 
Jesus  when  he  selects  the  mustard  plant  (Matt.  xiii.  31,  32), 
and  Paul  when  he  uses  the  olive  tree  (Rom.  xi.  17-24). 
There  are,  in  the  organised  body  of  Christians,  the  vital 
source  in  Christ,  the  organic  common  life,  and  the  continuity 
of  growth  that  are  seen  in  the  plant  and  the  tree. 

3.  The  prophet  Ezekiel  (xxxiv.  1-31)  uses  the  image  of 
the  "flock  and  shepherd."  This  became  a  favourite  con- 
ception of  the  psalmists  (Pss.  Ixxx.,  xcv.,  c;  Isa.  xl.  10-11). 
It  was  used  by  Jesus  (Luke  xv.  3-7;  John  x.  1-30)  and  by 
Paul  (Acts  XX.  28,  29).  Jesus  commissions  Peter  to  feed  his 
flock  (John  xxi.  15-17).  It  then  became  one  of  the  favour- 
ites of  the  early  Christians,  the  most  frequent  of  all  in  the 
martyr  age,  when  they  painted  and  carved  this  conception 
in  the  Roman  catacombs.  Jesus  teaches  that  there  is  but 
one  flock,  and  that,  while  some  sheep  may  be  scattered  and 
lost,  it  is  the  work  of  the  shepherd,  not  to  organise  them  into 
separate  flocks,  but  to  bring  them  back  to  the  one  flock,  that 
there  may  be  "one  flock,  one  shepherd"  (John  x.  16). 

4.  One  of  the  most  frequent  conceptions  of  the  organised 


THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH  39 

community  in  the  Old  Testament  times  is  that  of  "the  city 
of  God."  This  conception  sprang  up  when  the  kingdom 
had  virtually  been  reduced  to  the  city  of  Jerusalem  and  its 
environs,  so  that  practically  city  and  kingdom  were  one  and 
the  same.  It  is  Jeremiah  who  first  sees  the  holy  city  of  the 
restoration  and  pictures  it  as  more  sacred  than  the  ancient 
ark  of  the  covenant,  bearing  the  name  "  Yahweh  our  righteous- 
ness," holy  in  its  entire  suburbs  (Jer.  iii.  17;  xxxiii.  16; 
xxxi.  38-40).  Ezekiel  names  the  city  "Yahweh  is  there" 
(Ezek.  xlviii.  35).  The  great  prophet  of  the  exile  predicts 
that  it  will  be  rebuilt  of  precious  stones,  its  gates  salvation, 
its  walls  praise.  It  will  be  the  light  and  glory  of  the  world, 
and  bear  the  name  "Married"  and  "My  delight  is  in  thee." 
It  will  be  the  centre  of  a  new  earth  and  new  heaven  (Isa. 
xlix.  23;  liv.  12;  Ivi.  7;  Ix.,  Ixii.;  Ixv.  17-19).  One  of  the  later 
prophets  predicts  that  the  New  Jerusalem  will  be  so  holy 
that  the  bells  of  the  horses  and  cooking  utensils  will  bear 
the  same  inscription  as  the  tiara  of  the  high  priest,  "Holy  to 
Yahweh"  (Zech.  xiv.  20,  21). 

The  Psalter  uses  the  term  for  the  existing  community, 
although  the  ideal  ever  mingles  with  the  real : 

"His  brooks  make  glad  the  city  of  Yahweh, 
The  holy  place  of  the  tabernacle  of  Yahweh  '  Elyon. 
Yahweh  is  in  her  midst,  she  cannot  be  made  to  totter; 
Yahweh  will  help  her,  at  the  turn  of  the  mom"  (Ps.  xlvi.  5-6). 

"Great  and  highly  to  be  praised  in  the  city  is  our  God. 
His  holy  mount  is  beautiful  in  elevation,  the  joy  of  the  whole 

earth; 
Mount  Zion  on  the  northern  ridge  is  a  royal  city. 
Yahweh  doth  strive  in  her  citadels,  is  known  for  a  high  tower." 

(Ps.  xlviii.  2-4.)  * 

This  idea  of  the  city  is  specially  brought  out  in  the  eighty- 
seventh  Psalm,  the  one  called  by  Delitzsch  "the  city  of  the 
regen^ation  of  the  nations."    Thus  Old  Testament  prophetic 

*  The  translations  are  those  of  my  Commentary  on  the  Book  of  Psalms, 
I.  pp.  393,  400,  XL  239. 


40  CHURCH  UNITY 

usage  justifies  the  use  of  the  city,  in  the  New  Testament,  in 
the  eschatological  sense.  Paul  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 
(iv.  21-31)  contrasts  the  Jerusalem  that  now  is,  the  city  of 
the  Law,  with  the  Jerusalem  above,  the  mother  of  all  believ- 
ers. In  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  he  says:  *'For  our 
commonwealth  is  in  heaven;  from  whence  also  we  wait 
for  a  Saviour"  (Phil.  iii.  20).  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
represents  that  Christians  have  come,  not  to  Mount  Sinai, 
but  "unto  Mount  Zion,  and  unto  the  city  of  the  living  God, 
the  heavenly  Jerusalem"  (Heb.  xii.  22). 

The  apocalypse  of  the  Bowls  represents  the  New  Jerusalem 
as  descending  from  God  out  of  heaven  at  the  second  advent, 
glorious  as  an  immense  diamond,  with  twelve  foundations 
inscribed  with  the  names  of  the  twelve  apostles  of  the  Lamb ; 
and  the  apocalypse  of  the  Dragon  describes  it  as  coming 
down  as  a  bride  adorned  for  her  husband,  with  foundations 
of  twelve  most  precious  stones,  and  gates  of  pearl  and  streets 
of  gold,  four  square  as  the  holy  of  holies  of  the  ancient 
temple  (Rev.,  chap,  xxi).^ 

But  the  usage  of  the  Psalter  makes  it  proper  to  conceive 
of  the  Christian  community  in  the  world  as  also  a  city  of 
Gtxl.  This  is  the  term  which  Augustine  used  in  his  great 
classic  De  civitate  Dei.  It  is  also  justified  by  Paul's  words 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  where  he  represents  that  the 
Gentiles  who  were  "alienated  from  the  commonwealth  of 
Israel"  "are  made  nigh  in  the  blood  of  Christ,"  so  that  they 
are  "no  more  strangers,"  but  are  "fellow-citizens  with  the 
saints"  (Eph.  ii.  12-22).  And  so  Christian  poetry  has  ever 
delighted  to  sing  of  the  Church  as  the  city  of  God.  In  fact, 
the  Church  is  the  city  of  God  in  the  world,  and  also  in  a  large 
sense  the  city  of  God  in  the  heavenly  world  where  Christ 
is  enthroned  with  the  departed  saints  and  angels. 

5.  Still  more  important,  in  many  respects,  is  the  concep- 
tion of  the  Christian  community  as  "the  house  or  temple  of 
God."  This  is  involved  often  in  the  prophetic  pictu^-es  of 
the  city,  because  the  entire  city  becomes,  as  it  were,  a  temple. 
»  Messiah  of  the  Apostles,  pp.  363  f.,  431  f. 


THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF*  THE  CHURCH  41 

But  the  conception  of  temple  has  its  specific  ideals  and  rela- 
tions. The  corner-stone  and  the  cope-stone  are  prophetic 
images  in  Isaiah,  Zechariah  and  the  Psalter  to  indicate  the 
one  sure  foundation  and  the  one  certain  completion  of  the 
structure.  Both  of  these  are  applied  to  Christ  in  the  New 
Testament,  both  by  the  Master  himself  and  by  Peter  and 
Paul.  But  still  more  important  is  the  evolution  of  the  holy 
temple  of  the  New  Dispensation,  especially  in  the  prophecies 
of  Ezekiel.^  Jesus,  according  to  the  Gospel  of  John,  repre- 
sented that  when  he  rose  from  the  dead  he  would  himself 
be  the  temple  of  the  New  Dispensation  (John  ii.  18-22). 
Paul  elaborated  the  conception  of  the  Christian  temple  as 
he  did  that  of  the  Christian  eKKK'qaia.  He  now  represents 
that  the  individual  Christian  is  the  temple  of  God,  then 
that  the  local  Christian  community  is  the  temple  of  God,  and 
finally  that  the  whole  Christian  organism  is  the  temple  of 
God.  "  Know  ye  not  that  ye  are  a  temple  of  God,  and  that 
the  Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in  you?"  (I  Cor.  iii.  16),  he  says 
to  the  Corinthian  community.  "Know  ye  not  that  your 
body  is  a  temple  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  is  in  you  ?"  (I  Cor. 
vi.  19),  he  says  to  the  individual  Christian.  Then,  address- 
ing the  whole  Church  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,he  writes: 

"  Being  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Christ 
Jesus  himself  being  the  chief  corner-stone,  in  whom  each  several 
building,  fitly  framed  together,  groweth  into  a  holy  temple  in  the  Lord; 
in  whom  ye  also  are  builded  together  for  a  habitation  of  God  in  the 
Spirit"  (Eph.  ii.  20-22). 

The  whole  Christian  community  is  thus  the  very  temple 
of  God.  Christ  is  the  ever-living  corner-stone.  About 
him  are  the  living  foundations,  the  apostles  and  prophets 
of  the  New  Testament  dispensation.  This  is  an  elabora- 
tion of  the  prediction  of  Jesus  that  St.  Peter  was  to  be  the 
rock  of  the  house.  The  corner-stone  and  the  foundations 
are  all  laid,  the  structure  itself  rises,  it  grows  as  a  living  temple. 
Every  stone  is  living,  every  building  is  living,  the  whole  struc- 

*  Briggs,  Messianic  Prophecy,  pp.  479-480. 


42  CHURCH  UNITY 

ture  is  living  and  growing.  It  is  not  yet  completed,  but  is 
sure  to  be  completed  according  to  the  ideals  of  the  master. 
It  is  a  dwelling  of  God  in  the  Spirit.  The  Spirit  of  God 
animates  it  with  life  and  growth.  Here  St.  Paul  conceives 
of  the  Christian  community  in  its  entirety  as  possessed  by 
the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Holy  Spirit  inhabits  each  one,  and 
inhabits,  organises,  and  gives  growth  and  harmony  to  the 
whole. 

St.  Peter  has  the  same  conception  where  he  says:  "If  ye 
have  tasted  that  the  Lord  is  gracious;  unto  whom  coming,  a 
living  stone,  rejected  indeed  of  men,  but  with  God  elect, 
precious,  ye  also,  as  living  stones,  are  built  up  a  spiritual 
house,  to  be  a  holy  priesthood,  to  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices, 
acceptable  to  God  through  Jesus  Christ"  (I  Peter  ii.  3-5). 
Here  priesthood  and  sacrifice  are  attached  to  the  entire 
Christian  community  as  well  as  to  the  living  Christ,  and  they 
are  all  attached  naturally  and  necessarily  to  the  conception 
of  the  Christian  community  as  a  real,  living  temple  of  God. 
Nothing  needs  to  be  emphasized  and  unfolded  in  connection 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  Christian  Church  so  much  as  just 
this  idea,  that  it  is  a  holy  temple  of  priesthood  and  sacrifice 
inhabited  by  the  divine  Spirit.  This  is  just  the  conception  of 
Church  to  which  we  are  being  guided  in  our  day  as  the 
one  most  appropriate  for  our  times. 

6.  Another  conception  which  plays  an  important  part  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  which  is  prepared  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, is  that  the  religious  organisation  is  a  "household  or 
family"  of  God.  This  begins  with  the  thought  of  the  Judaic 
writer  of  the  Pentateuch  where  he  represents  God  as  saying, 
"  Israel  is  my  son,  my  first-born  "  (Exod.  iv.  22).  Israel  as 
an  organisation  is  the  son  of  God.  This  conception  is  also 
found  in  the  song  of  Moses  (Deut.  xxxii.  6).  It  is  used  in 
the  generic  sense  in  Hosea  and  the  prophets  that  follow  him. 

In  the  teaching  of  Jesus  for  the  first  time  the  conception  of 
fatherhood  is  distributed  to  individuals.  This  was  first  possi- 
ble when  Jesus  as  the  incarnate  Saviour  showed  himself  to  be 
the  Son  of  the  Father  and  taught  his  disciples  that  God  was 


THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OP  THE  CHURCH  43 

also  the  father  of  each  and  all  of  them.  Paul  represents  that 
the  Spirit  of  God  gives  believers  the  spirit  of  adoption  in  which 
they  recognise  God  as  their  father  and  themselves  as  joint 
heirs  with  Christ  (Rom.  viii.  14-17).  Christ  united  Jew  and 
Gentile  into  one  household,  or  family  of  God  (Eph.  ii.  19). 
God  is  the  father  of  all  fatherhoods  (Eph.  iii.  14-17).  He 
is  the  universal  father,  under  whose  paternal  authority  all 
men  and  angels  are  grouped  in  fatherhoods,  just  as  Israel 
was  in  the  Old  Testament  dispensation.  This  does  not 
imply  that  all  men  and  angels  are  in  this  sense  children  of  God. 
There  is,  indeed,  a  sense  in  which  God  is  the  universal  father 
of  all  His  creation.  But  the  fatherhood  of  which  we  are  speak- 
ing is  the  fatherhood  by  adoption,  fatherhood  of  grace;  a 
fatherhood,  a  sonship  and  a  brotherhood  which  are  peculiar 
to  the  redeemed,  and  which  belong  exclusively  to  the  Chris- 
tian community.  John  conceives  of  this  fatherhood  and 
sonship  and  brotherhood  in  the  Christian  family  as  all 
summed  up  in  love.  This  conception  of  the  Church  as  a 
family  of  God,  a  brotherhood,  is  a  favourite  one  in  modern 
times,  especially  among  our  Congregational  brethren. 

7.  The  religious  community  of  the  Old  Testament  is  fre- 
quently conceived  of,  from  the  time  of  the  prophet  Hosea 
onward,  as  the  "wife  of  Yahweh."  The  prophets  Zephaniah, 
Jeremiah  and  the  great  prophet  of  the  exile  exult  in  the  re- 
lation of  love,  and  strain  their  imaginations  to  picture  it  in 
terms  of  beauty  and  grandeur  and  pathetic  tenderness.^ 
The  same  conception  is  taken  up  in  the  New  Testament, 
where  Paul  represents  the  Church  as  the  bride  of  Christ 
(Eph.  V.  23-32),  and  in  the  Apocalypse,  where  the  Christian 
community  is  the  bride  of  the  Saviour  (Rev.  xxi.  2-9). 

8.  The  conception  of  the  incarnation,  as  it  unfolds  to  St. 
Paul,  involves  a  closer  union  between  Christ  and  his  people 
than  any  thus  far  considered,  a  union  of  vital  organisation, 
a  racial  identification.  For  this  purpose  the  "human  body" 
is  used  as  the  image.  Christ  is  the  head  of  the  Church  con- 
ceived as  a  body.     But,  more  than  that:    Christians  are 

*  See  my  Messianic  Propheq/,  pp.  482  f . 


44  CHURCH  UNITY 

Christ's  bodily  members  (I  Cor.  vi.  15;  Eph.  v.  30).  For 
this  latter  passage,  a  gloss  in  many  ancient  manuscripts  adds 
"of  his  flesh  and  of  his  bones."  The  nearest  approach  to 
this  conception  in  the  Old  Testament  is  in  that  great  apoca- 
lypse, Isaiah  xxiv.-xxvii.,  where  Israel  is  called  by  Yah- 
weh  "My  corpse"  (Isa.  xxvi.  19),  which  He  will  therefore 
raise  to  national  life  again.  So  Jesus  identifies  the  entire 
Christian  community  with  himself  in  all  that  he  does.  They 
died  with  him  on  the  cross,  were  buried  with  him,  rose  with 
him,  ascended  with  him,  are  enthroned  with  him  and  have 
their  life  ever  hidden  in  him.  Paul  sets  this  forth  most  com- 
pletely in  one  of  those  involved  images  of  which  he  is  so  fond : 

"And  he  gave  some  to  be  apostles;  and  some,  prophets;  and  some, 
evangelists;  and  some,  pastors  and  teachers;  for  the  perfecting  of  the 
saints,  unto  the  work  of  ministering,  unto  the  building  up  of  the  body 
of  Christ:  till  we  all  attain  unto  the  unity  of  faith,  and  of  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  Son  of  God,  unto  a  full-grown  man,  unto  the  measure  of 
the  stature  of  the  fulness  of  Christ;  that  we  may  be  no  longer  children, 
tossed  to  and  fro  and  carried  about  with  every  wind  of  doctrine,  by  the 
sleight  of  men,  in  craftiness,  after  the  wiles  of  error;  but  speaking  truth 
in  love,  may  grow  up  in  all  things  into  him,  which  is  the  head,  even  Christ; 
from  whom  all  the  body  fitly  framed  and  knit  together  through  that 
which  every  joint  supplieth,  according  to  the  working  in  due  measure 
of  each  several  part,  maketh  the  increase  of  the  body  unto  the  build- 
ing up  of  itself  in  love"  (Eph.  iv.  11-16). 

As  I  have  said  elsewhere: 

"The  one  body  is  ever  growing  up  unto  the  Messiah,  the  head. 
Its  parts  are  fitly  framed  and  knit  together  through  that  which  every 
joint  supplieth.  This  thought  of  a  perfect  head  and  a  body  in  course 
of  construction  is  complex  and  difficult  to  understand.  It  is  probable 
that  the  apostle  is  thinking  of  the  growth  of  the  body  from  early  child- 
hood to  full  manhood.  That  is  certainly  his  conception  when  he 
alludes  to  the  diversity  of  workers.  They  are  at  first  babes  liable  to  be 
misled;  they  are  to  grow  into  men,  and  ultimately  into  full-grown  men, 
into  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fulness  of  the  Messiah.  Every 
member  of  the  body  is  a  miniature  of  the  whole  body,  as  the  Messiah 
himself  is  the  model  of  the  whole  body  and  of  each  member  of  it.  It 
is  probable,  therefore,  that,  as  the  individual  Christian  is  conceived  as 
growing  from  infancy  into  manhood,  so  the  whole  body  of  Christians 


THE  BIBLICAL   DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH  45 

through  the  same  experience,  and  does  not  reach  its  manhood 
until  one  and  all  have  attained  the  perfection  of  the  Messiah.  Accord- 
ingly we  have  an  involved  figure  of  speech  which  corresponds  with 
that  of  the  living  and  growing  stones  of  the  temple.  The  Messiah  is 
the  temple  of  God,  every  Christian  is  a  temple,  and  the  whole  Church 
is  the  temple.  So  the  Messiah  is  the  perfect  man,  every  Christian  is 
to  become  a  perfect  man,  and  the  whole  Church  is  to  become  the 
perfect  man.  The  organic  and  vital  union  of  the  Messiah  with  his 
people  involves  this  threefold  relation."  The  Messiah  of  the  Apostles, 
1895,  pp.  202,  204,  205. 

We  have  now  gone  over  ten  terms  which  may  be  regarded 
as  synonymous  terms  for  representing  the  New  Testament 
doctrine  of  the  Church.  Theologians  have  usually  taken 
one  or  more  of  them  and  endeavoured  to  construct  a  doctrine. 
Any  such  effort,  whether  you  use  eV/cXTycrta,  or  ySactXeta,  or 
avvaycoyi],  or  "city  of  God,"  or  "brotherhood,"  or  "temple," 
or  any  other,  will  always  be  partial  and  one-sided,  and  will 
tend,  if  unduly  unfolded  in  logical  analysis  and  practical 
application,  to  result  in  errors  of  various  kinds.  He  who 
would  know  the  mind  of  the  ever-living,  glorified  Redeemer, 
our  Lord  and  our  King,  our  Priest  and  our  Head,  should  use 
all  these  terms,  and  endeavour  to  construct  them  into  a  har- 
monious and  symmetrical  whole.  There  is  in  such  a  method 
much  fruit  for  the  future  use  of  Christ's  Church.  Holy 
Scripture  contains  very  much  teaching  on  this,  as  on  other 
subjects,  that  has  either  not  been  used  at  all,  or  else  im- 
perfectly and  disproportionately  used.  A  blessing  is  in 
store  for  all  who  will  follow  the  teachings  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
with  a  mind  broad  enough  to  comprehend  them  and  a  spirit 
earnest  enough  to  strive  to  do  all  that  the  Lord  and  his 
apostles  teach 


in 

CATHOLIC—THE  NAME  AND  THE  THING 

There  is  probably  no  word  that  is  more  misused  in  mod- 
em times  than  "Catholic."  It  is  a  name  used  to  conjure 
with,  and  it  stands  for  things  which  excite  the  passions  of 
men  to  an  extraordinary  degree.  It  is,  indeed,  one  of  the 
great  words  of  Christianity,  ripe  with  historic  meaning,  and 
pregnant  with  all-important  consequences.  It  is  important, 
therefore,  that  we  should  know  what  the  name  really  means, 
and  what  things  are  actually  embraced  under  it.  There  is 
only  one  pathway  to  this  knowledge.  We  must,  so  far  as 
practicable,  divest  ourselves  of  every  form  of  provincial, 
sectarian  and  partisan  prejudice,  and  trace  the  word  in  the 
lines  of  historic  investigation  from  its  origin  until  it  gained 
a  stereotyped  meaning. 

I.    THE  TERM  CATHOLIC 

The  word  "Catholic"  had  its  origin  in  the  Greek  language; 
and  the  things  it  stands  for  in  Christianity  originated  at  a 
time  when  the  Greek  language  was  the  religious  language  of 
Christians  in  the  West  as  well  as  in  the  East,  in  Rome  and 
Africa  and  Gaul  as  well  as  in  Alexandria,  Asia  and  Antioch. 
KadoXiKo^  is  not  found  in  the  Greek  Bible  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, or  the  New  Testament.  It  is  an  adjective  com- 
pounded of  the  preposition  KaTa,  meaning  in  this  connection 
"throughout,"  and  the  adjective  5Xo9,  "whole,"  properly 
in  the  accusative,  6Xov  or  oXrjv,  in  accordance  with  the  noun 
to  which  it  is  attached.  These  words  are  used  separately 
often  enough  in  the  Greek  Bible  and  in  Greek  literature.  As 
compounded    into    an   adjective,  though  quite  frequent  in 

46 


CATHOLIC — THE   NAME  AND  THE  THING  47 

Greek  literature  in  the  sense  of  "universal/*  it  is  not  found 
until  the  sub-apostolic  age  in  Christian  literature. 

We  first  meet  the  word  in  the  epistle  of  Ignatius,  the  bishop 
of  Antioch,  to  the  church  at  Smyrna,  early  in  the  second 
century,  in  the  sentence:  "Wheresoever  the  bishop  shall 
appear,  there  let  the  people  be;  even  as  where  Jesus  may 
be,  there  is  the  Catholic  Church"  (8).  The  Catholic  Church 
is  the  Church  gathered  about  Jesus  as  its  head,  just  as  the 
church  of  Smyrna  was  gathered  about  its  bishop.  The 
Catholic  Church  is  thus  the  universal  Church  as  distinguished 
from  the  local  church,  the  Church  throughout  the  whole 
world,  under  Jesus  Christ  the  bishop  of  all;  as  Ignatius 
says,  in  this  same  epistle:  "that  he  might  set  up  an  ensign 
unto  all  ages,  through  his  resurrection  for  his  saints  and  faith- 
ful people,  whether  among  Jews  or  among  gentiles,  in  one 
body  of  his  Church"  (1);  using  o-w/ia,  the  favourite  term  of 
Paul. 

We  find  three  uses  of  the  word  in  the  letter  of  the  church  of 
Smyrna  on  the  martyrdom  of  Polycarp,  its  bishop,  soon  after 
the  martyrdom  in  155  or  156.  There  is  no  good  reason  to 
question  their  genuineness.  The  letter  is  addressed  "to  all 
the  sojourning  churches  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  through- 
out every  place"  (1).  The  martyr,  when  arrested,  offers 
prayer  for  "  the  whole  Catholic  Church  throughout  the  habit- 
able world"  (8).  Jesus  Christ  is  represented  as  "the  Shep- 
herd of  the  Catholic  Church  throughout  the  habitable  world  " 
(19).  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  in  the  church  of  Smyrna 
under  its  bishop  Polycarp,  and  the  church  of  Antioch  under 
its  bishop  Ignatius,  the  term  "Catholic  Church"  had  become 
a  name  for  the  universal  Christian  Church  as  united  to 
Christ  the  universal  Shepherd,  Bishop  and  Lord.  The 
name  "catholic,"  like  the  names  "church"  and  "apostle" 
and  "  Christian,"  seems  to  have  originated  in  Antioch. 

Although  the  term  does  not  appear  in  Hermas,  the  Roman 
prophet  of  this  period,  yet  the  conception  does.  For  he 
uses  the  image  of  a  tower  for  the  Church  as  built  up  of  living 
stones  in  four  courses  or  generations,  of  apostles  and  prophets 


48  CHURCH   UNITY 

and  ministers/  just  as  Paul  uses  the  image  of  a  temple;^ 
and  he  conceives  of  the  Church  as  the  bride  of  Christ/  just 
as  Paul  does/  Hennas  frequently  uses  the  term  "iwly 
Church"  for  the  whole  body  of  Christians  united  to  Christ, 
in  this  following  Peter,  who  represents  the  Christian  body  as 
"a  spiritual  house,  a  holy  priesthood,  to  offer  up  spiritual 
sacrifices  acceptable  to  God  through  Jesus  Christ."^  Justin, 
who  represents,  in  his  origin  Palestine,  and  in  his  chief 
Christian  service  Rome,  does  not  use  the  term  "catholic," 
but  writes  of  the  unity  of  Christians  as  the  true  Israel  of  God 
in  accordance  with  Paul,®  and  in  fulfilment  of  the  prophecies 
of  the  Old  Testament.  The  Muratorian  Fragment,  represent- 
ing the  Roman  church  of  the  latter  half  of  the  second  century, 
uses  the  term  "catholic  Church"  twice,  as  synonymous  with 
"one  Church  spread  abroad  throughout  the  whole  world." 
Irenseus,  bishop  of  Lyons,  who  represents  Asia  in  origin, 
but  Gaul  in  his  ministry,  writing  in  the  last  quarter  of  the 
second  century,  says  that  "the  Catholic  Church  possesses  one 
and  the  same  faith  throughout  the  whole  world.  "^  We  may 
say,  therefore,  that  the  word  "catholic"  had  become  a  com- 
mon name  for  the  Church  throughout  the  world  by  the  close 
of  the  second  century. 

The  Christian  Church  of  the  second  century  was  not  only 
in  conflict  with  Judaism  and  heathenism,  and  so  passed 
through  a  number  of  persecutions  with  its  martyrdoms;  it 
also  had  to  wage  a  still  more  difficult  war  against  Gnosticism 
in  its  manifold  forms.  It  therefore  became  necessary  to 
battle  for  genuine  Christianity,  against  the  many  spurious 
forms  proposed  by  the  Gnostics  to  make  an  eclectic  religion 
by  mingling  Christianity  and  heathenism;  and  Christian 
writers  were  obliged  to  appeal  for  authority  to  the  traditions 
of  the  apostolic  sees  and  to  the  apostolic  writings.  The 
Catholic  Church,  therefore,  insisted  upon  its  historic  unity 
with  the  apostles,  as  well  as  upon  its  geographical  unity 

»  Sim.  ix.  15.  '  Eph.  ii.  19-22.  ^  Vis.  iv.  2. 

*  Eph.  V.  23-27.  » I  Peter  ii.  6.  •  Gal.  vi.  16. 

'  Adv.  Haer.,  I,  x.  3. 


CATHOLIC— THE  NAME  AND  THE  THING  49 

throughout  the  world,  and  its  mystic  or  vital  unity  with  the 
enthroned  and  reigning  Christ.  Irenaeus  is  the  most  reliable 
exponent  of  this  situation.  He  speaks  of  the  "rule  of  the 
truth  which  he  received  by  means  of  baptism."^  "The 
Church,  though  dispersed  throughout  the  whole  world,  even 
to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  has  received  from  the  apostles  and 
their  disciples  this  faith,"  which  he  defines  in  terms  similar 
to  the  Apostles'  Creed.^ 

The  Church,  having  received  this  preaching  and  this  faith,  although 
scattered  throughout  the  whole  world,  yet  as  if  occupying  but  one  house, 
carefully  preserves  it.  She  also  believes  these  points  just  as  if  she  had 
but  one  soul,  and  one  and  the  same  heart;  and  she  proclaims  them, 
and  teaches  them,  and  hands  them  down  with  perfect  harmony,  as  if 
she  possessed  only  one  mouth.  For  although  the  languages  of  the  world 
are  dissimilar,  yet  the  import  of  the  tradition  is  one  and  the  same.  {Ibid., 
x:2.)  .  .  .  .  "When  we  refer  the  heretics  to  that  tradition  which  orig- 
inates from  the  apostles,  which  is  preserved  by  means  of  the  succession 
of  presbyters  in  the  churches,"  they  object  to  the  tradition,  saying  that 
"  they  themselves  are  wiser  not  merely  than  the  presbyters,  but  even  than 
the  apostles,  because  they  have  discovered  the  unadulterated  truth." 
{Ibid.,  III.  ii :  2.) 

And  so  the  three  great  adjectives  qualifying  the  Church 
gradually  originated,  ^'holy,"  "catholic"  and  "apostolic." 
Writers  differ  in  their  use  of  these  terms.  They  were  often 
used  interchangeably  as  standing  for  essentially  the  same 
things.  The  adjective  used  in  connection  with  the  article 
of  the  Church,  in  the  so-called  Apostles'  Creed,  varies  in  the 
ancient  writers.  The  original  form  of  the  Roman  symbol 
was  probably  "Holy  Church,"  the  word  of  St.  Peter  and 
Hermas,  which  was  subsequently  enlarged  to  "Holy  Catholic 
Church  "  not  later  than  the  early  years  of  the  fourth  century. 

The  name  "catholic"  thus  stood  for  three  essential  things: 
(1)  the  vital  unity  of  the  Church  in  Christ;  (2)  the  geograph- 
ical unity  of  the  Church  extending  throughout  the  world; 
(3)  the  historical  unity  of  the  Church  in  apostolic  tradition. 
These  things  only  gradually  emerged  from  concrete  forms 

*  Ibid.,  I,  ix.  4;  c/.  xxii.  1,  ^Ibid.,  x.  1. 


50  CHURCH  UNITY 

of  common  experience  into  abstract  forms  of  definition,  due 
partly  to  the  external  forces  of  controversy,  partly  to  internal 
forces  of  evolution. 

II.    CATHOLICITY  AND  APOSTOLICITY 

It  is  undoubtedly  true,  as  Irenseus  and  other  ancient  Fathers 
have  stated,  that  there  was  in  Christianity  a  sacred  deposit, 
committed  in  oral  instruction  by  the  apostles  to  the  churches 
which  they  established,  and  which  did  not  find  complete 
expression  in  apostolic  writings.  Moreover,  the  Church 
was  inhabited  by  the  divine  Spirit,  the  great  teacher,  counsel- 
lor and  guide,  in  accordance  with  the  promises  of  Jesus  and 
the  experience  as  well  as  the  teachings  of  the  apostles..  This 
deposit  was  used  by  the  Church  under  the  guidance  of  the 
divine  Spirit,  when  it  was  needed  in  the  unfolding  of  its 
knowledge  and  of  its  life.  It  soon  became  necessary,  after 
the  death  of  the  apostles  and  of  their  immediate  successors, 
to  collect  in  definite  forms  some  of  the  essential  things  of 
this  deposit.  We  cannot  take  time  to  trace  the  gradual 
evolution  of  these  things  in  the  different  apostolic  sees; 
but  it  was  certainly  the  work  of  the  second  Christian  century 
to  give  us  the  consensus  of  the  Church,  in  a  Canon  of  Holy 
Scripture,  a  Creed  known  as  the  Apostles*  Creed,  and  the 
organisation  of  the  Church  in  its  order,  discipline  and 
worship. 

Several  important  questions  now  emerge: 

1.  If  the  Catholic  Church  maintains  its  unity  with  the 
apostles  by  historic  succession,  ought  we  not  to  limit  the 
scope  of  Catholicity  to  those  things  that  can  be  proved,  from 
apostolic  writings,  to  be  the  teaching  of  the  apostles?  In 
this  case  the  New  Testament  would  be  the  test  of  Catholicity, 
and  not  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  of  the  second  Christian 
century.  If  the  teaching  of  the  apostles  is  to  be  limited  to 
that  recorded  in  the  writing  of  the  New  Testament,  then  we 
must  either  limit  ourselves  to  the  express  teaching  of  the 
New  Testament,  or  recognise  at  the  same  time  legitimate 


CATHOLIC— THE  NAME  AND  THE  THING  51 

logical  deductions  and  practical  applications.  This  latter 
principle  has  been  so  universally  recognised  that  it  is  hardly 
worth  our  while  to  argue  for  it.  If  this  be  so,  then  the  Church 
of  the  second  century  in  its  logical  unfolding  and  practical 
application  of  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament  gave  the 
Church  what  may  be  called  the  Catholic  type,  as  distinguished 
from  the  New  Testament  type. 

But  we  must  go  farther  than  this,  and  say  that  it  is  difficult 
to  suppose  that  the  entire  teaching  of  the  apostles  is  actually 
recorded  in  the  New  Testament.  The  teaching  of  one  apostle, 
St.  Paul,  dominates  the  New  Testament.  Where  shall  we 
find  the  teaching  of  the  Twelve,  commissioned  by  our  Lord 
to  make  disciples  of  all  nations  and  teach  them  his  com- 
mands, unless  we  find  it  in  the  traditions  of  the  churches  which 
they  established  ?  It  is  recognised  by  many  modern  historians 
that  the  Christian  Church  of  the  second  century  did  not  fol- 
low Paul  in  his  distinctive  teachings;  but  was  more  in  ac- 
cord with  such  teachings  of  Jesus  as  we  find  in  the  synoptic 
Gospels,  and  with  what  we  know  of  the  mind  of  the  Twelve 
only  by  incidental  references  in  the  New  Testament.  Argu- 
ing back  from  effect  to  cause,  there  must  have  been  other 
extended  and  more  powerful  influences  than  those  of  St. 
Paul,  leading  even  the  Roman  Church  in  somewhat  differ- 
ent lines  from  those  St.  Paul  marked  out.  How  can  this  be 
explained  unless  we  suppose  that  St.  Peter  and  other  authorita- 
tive teachers  gave  instruction  which  did  not  find  its  way  into 
writings,  but  was  written  in  the  minds  of  their  hearers  and 
inscribed  upon  the  institutions  of  the  Church  ? 

When  Harnack  says  that  "only  one  Gentile  Christian, 
Marcion,  understood  Paul"  (in  the  second  century),  "and 
he  misunderstood  him";*  what  is  that  but  to  imply  that  St. 
Paul's  theology  as  understood  by  Harnack  had  not  the  same 
preponderating  influence  in  the  Church  that  it  has  in  the 
New  Testament?  But  inasmuch  as  the  Epistles  of  Paul 
were  gathered  into  the  Canon  before  the  catholic  Epistles, 
and  especially  in  the  Roman  Church,  may  it  not  also  imply 
» Dogmengeschichte,  Bd.  I  (1886).  p.  62. 


52  CHURCH  UNITY 

that  the  Church  of  the  second  century  did  not  understand 
those  Epistles  as  some  moderns  do;  and  may  they  not  after 
all  have  been  correct? 

The  old  Protestant  view  that  the  Church  of  the  second  cen- 
tury declined  from  the  apostolic  faith,  as  expressed  in  the  New 
Testament,  is  historically  impossible  and  incredible.  Such 
an  unfaithful  and  declining  Church  could  never  have  sus- 
tained the  stress  of  martyrdom  and  have  overcome  the  seduc- 
tions of  Gnosticism,  and  then  have  come  out  of  the  martyr- 
doms of  the  second  and  third  centuries  into  the  victories  of 
the  fourth  century.  It  is  not  valid  historical  criticism  which 
justifies  the  interpretation  of  the  evolution  of  Catholic 
Christianity  as  a  secularisation  of  Christianity.  It  is  not 
true  that  Greek  philosophy  and  Roman  administration 
secularised  Christianity. 

Clement  of  Alexandria  was  more  just  in  his  estimation  of 
the  facts  when  he  said: 

Perchance,  philosophy  was  given  to  the  Greeks  directly  and  primarily 
till  the  Lord  should  call  the  Greeks.  For  this  was  a  schoolmaster  to 
bring  the  Hellenic  mind,  as  the  Law  the  Hebrew,  to  Christ.  Philosophy, 
therefore,  was  a  preparation  paving  the  way  for  him  who  is  perfected 
in  Christ.    Strom.  1,  5. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  the  Roman  administration. 
Philosophy  was  prepared  by  divine  Providence  to  give 
Christianity  its  philosophic  form  for  doctrine,  and  the  Roman 
administration  was  prepared  in  the  same  way  to  give  Chris- 
tianity its  administrative  organisation.  To  regard  all  this 
as  secularisation,  and  as  a  victory  of  vanquished  heathenism 
over  Christianity,  is  to  misinterpret  Christian  history.  It 
is  an  effort  to  interpret  ancient  Christianity  after  a  modern 
theory  which  is  contrary  to  the  principles  of  the  philosophy 
of  history  and  any  just  conception  of  historical  evolution.  It 
is  not  strange  that  this  theory  results  in  making  the  history 
of  dogma  end  in  bankruptcy. 

It  is  necessary  to  say  that  New  Testament  Christianity 
is  one  thing,  Catholic  Christianity  is  another,  later,  and  in 


CATHOLIC — THE  NAME  AND  THE  THING  53 

some  respects  more  complete  thing,  however  far  short  it 
may  fall  of  the  ideals  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  in  other 
respects. 

The  next  question  that  emerges  is  whether  we  are  to  limit 
Catholic  Christianity  to  the  consensus  of  Christianity  as  re- 
corded in  the  writings  of  the  second  Christian  century.  We 
have  already  seen  that  we  cannot  limit  the  teaching  of  the 
apostles  to  that  teaching  as  recorded  in  the  New  Testament. 
So  we  cannot  limit  the  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church  to 
that  which  has  been  transmitted  to  us  in  those  writings  of 
the  second  century  which  have  been  preserved;  for  as  many 
of  the  prophets  and  apostles  of  the  first  century  were  not  so 
much  writers  as  teachers,  preachers,  and  organisers  of 
churches;  just  so  in  the  second  century  many  of  the  great 
bishops  and  teachers  have  left  us  no  literary  monuments, 
and  many  of  the  writings  of  other  influential  teachers  and 
writers  have  been  lost.  We  have,  therefore,  only  a  very 
partial  and  incomplete  literary  expression  of  the  faith  and 
life  of  the  Church  when  it  realised,  emphasised,  and  gave 
expression  in  historic  forms  to  its  Catholicity.  The  Church 
of  the  third  and  fourth  centuries  cannot  be  explained  merely 
on  the  basis  of  the  literature  of  the  second  century.  Further- 
more, the  divine  Spirit  was  working  mightily  in  the  Church 
and  guiding  the  Church  in  all  its  parts  to  use  its  sacred 
deposit  by  logical  deduction  and  practical  application  to  new 
needs  and  circumstances  as  they  arose.  Especially  in  the 
field  of  the  practical  application  of  Christianity,  literary 
records  often  fail  us  when  most  needed.  It  is  necessary  to 
supplement  to  some  extent,  therefore,  the  literature  of  this 
century,  if  we  would  comprehend  all  that  the  Catholic 
Church  stood  for  at  the  close  of  that  century.  But  how  far 
shall  we  go  in  this  regard  and  where  shall  we  stop  ? 

It  is  necessary  to  include  the  third  Christian  century  with 
the  second  in  thinking  of  the  ancient  Catholic  Church,  for 
there  is  no  evident  line  of  cleavage  between  them.  The 
processes  of  the  second  century  did  not  reach  their  conclusion 
until  the  third  century.     The  external  struggles  of  Christian 


54  CHURCH  UNITY 

Rome  with  imperial  Rome  still  continued,  and  the  blood  of 
the  martyrs  continued  to  attest  the  reality  of  the  Catholic 
faith  and  life.  The  integrity  of  Apostolic  Christianity  had 
still  to  be  maintained  against  various  eccentricities  and  cor- 
ruptions. The  internal  evolution  of  the  Church  under  the 
guidance  of  the  divine  Spirit  went  on,  and  treasures  new  as 
well  as  old  were  brought  forth  from  its  sacred  deposits.  The 
Canon  had  been  defined  as  to  its  first  and  second  layers; 
but  there  was  still  uncertainty  as  to  the  Apocrypha,  the 
Catholic  Epistles  and  the  Revelation,  and  other  early 
Christian  writings.  There  was  a  consensus  in  the  Apostles' 
Creed  as  to  the  essentials  of  its  primitive  Roman  form,  but 
its  clauses  had  not  altogether  reached  their  final  form.  But 
especially  in  the  life  and  institutions  of  the  Church  the  writ- 
ers of  the  third  century  give  us  important  help  to  determine 
even  the  consensus  of  the  second  century.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  the  Church  has  always  been  influenced  by 
external  more  than  by  internal  forces  in  the  formulas  it  has 
constructed  at  successive  stages  in  its  history.  It  is,  there- 
fore, those  features  of  Christianity  that  are  more  external 
which  are  most  emphasised  before  the  world.  Those  fea- 
tures which  are  more  internal  and  esoteric  are  in  the  back- 
ground of  documents  and  writings,  and  in  not  a  few  instances 
are  outside  the  scope  of  their  discussion.  In  this  case  the 
silence  of  documents  may  be  the  best  evidence  of  Catholic 
consensus  on  such  matters  as  were  already  established  be- 
yond controversy.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  if  we  would 
understand  Catholicity  in  its  entire  scope,  to  ascertain  the 
consensus  of  the  Christianity  of  the  second  and  third  cen- 
turies as  to  Christian  life  and  Christian  institutions  as  well 
as  to  Christian  doctrine.  It  is  especially  necessary  to  do 
this  because  with  the  fourth  century  the  great  doctrinal  dis- 
cussions came  into  the  field  which  were  determined  by  the 
great  ecumenical  councils,  fixing  the  orthodoxy  of  the  Church, 
and  as  a  result  of  this  situation  the  faith  of  the  Church  be- 
came the  most  prominent  thing;  and  that  cast  its  shadow 
over  the  previous  centuries  also,  giving  an  exaggerated  im- 


CATHOLIC— THE  NAME  AND  THE  THING  55 

portance  to  the  preparatory  evolution  of  doctrine  in  those 
centuries  in  the  statements  of  subsequent  writers. 

III.    CATHOLICITY  AND  ORTHODOXY 

Standing  on  the  basis  of  the  ancient  Ecumenical  Councils, 
the  Greek  Church  has  ever  named  itself  the  Orthodox 
Church.  The  question  now  arises:  Are  we  entitled  to  use 
these  definitions  of  orthodoxy  as  belonging  to  Catholic 
Christianity  ?  May  we  say  that  these  are  simply  definitions 
of  that  which  the  Church  really  believed  in  the  previous  cen- 
turies, and  that  they  are  only  a  necessary  evolution  of  the 
sacred  deposit  of  apostolic  and  Catholic  teaching?  A  care- 
ful study  of  the  question  makes  it  evident  that,  as  we  dis- 
tinguish Catholic  Christianity  as  a  second  stage  to  New 
Testament  Christianity,  so  we  must  distinguish  Orthodox 
Christianity  as  a  third  stage  in  the  order  of  evolution  of 
Christianity.  We  have  no  more  right  to  put  the  definitions 
of  the  great  Ecumenical  Councils  back  into  the  Catholic 
Church  of  the  previous  centuries,  than  we  have  to  put  the 
definitions  of  the  Catholic  Church  of  the  second  and  third 
centuries  back  into  the  New  Testament  times. 

It  may,  however,  be  urged  that,  while  this  may  be  true  of  all 
the  later  councils,  it  cannot  be  true  of  the  Council  of  Nicaea; 
for  we  must  regard  that  council  as  giving  expression,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  to  the  consensus  of  the 
Church  of  the  previous  century.  But  we  cannot  take  that 
position  in  fact,  for  the  Nicene  Council  did  not  define  the 
consensus  of  Christianity.  It  made  one  opinion  orthodox 
and  dominant  over  against  a  widely  prevailing  Arianism 
and  Semi-Arianism.  If,  moreover,  we  recognise  that  the 
first  council  may  define  the  Catholic  Faith  by  limiting  ortho- 
doxy to  one  of  several  views  hitherto  prevailing,  and  may  so 
divide  the  Catholic  Church  into  sections,  of  which  only  one 
can  be  called  Catholic,  there  is  no  valid  reason  why  we 
should  stop  with  that  council,  or  indeed  with  any  council, 
for  it  establishes  the  principle  that  to  be  and  remain  Catholic, 


56  CHURCH  UNITY 

one  must  accept  as  final  the  decisions  of  the  Catholic  Church 
on  any  question,  in  any  and  every  age  until  the  end  of  the 
world.  And  this  is  quite  easy  so  soon  as  the  principle  is 
recognised.  For  we  have  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  has  always  claimed  in  such  decisions  that 
it  is  not  really  making  any  new  doctrines,  but  simply  de- 
fining apostolic  Christian  doctrine  over  against  errors  which 
have  sprung  up  in  contravention  to  it.  If  these  later  defi- 
nitions of  catholic  doctrine  are  to  be  regarded  as  really 
catholic,  then  as  an  inevitable  consequence  catholic  and 
orthodox — Catholic  and  Roman — become  practically  con- 
vertible terms. 

Moreover,  we  cannot  limit  Catholicity  to  dogma,  as  many 
vainly  suppose.  We  cannot  think  ourselves  catholic  simply 
because  we  agree  with  the  Greeks  in  holding  to  the  definitions 
of  the  great  Ecumenical  Councils.  Catholic,  as  we  have 
seen,  covers  not  only  the  Faith  of  the  Church,  but  also,  in- 
deed primarily,  its  institutions  and  its  life.  If,  indeed,  we 
recognise  that  there  has  been  a  sacred  deposit  transmitted  by 
tradition  in  the  Church  other  than  Holy  Scripture,  it  is  neces- 
sary from  the  very  nature  of  the  case  to  find  that  deposit 
more  largely  in  religious  institutions  and  ethical  life  than  in 
doctrine.  If  Catholicity  is  to  be  extended  to  the  evolution  of 
doctrine,  it  must  also  be  extended  to  the  evolution  of  insti- 
tution, and  thus  the  whole  system  of  mediaeval  rites  and 
ceremonies,  the  scholastic  sacramental  system,  and  papal 
organisation,  come  inevitably  into  the  range  of  Catholicity 
as  necessary  to  constitute  a  truly  Catholic  Church. 

We  see  all  about  us  men  on  various  steps  leading  to  this 
goal.  Those  who  insist  upon  the  Nicene  Creed  as  the  test 
may  be  conceived  as  on  the  first  step,  although  many  of  these 
are  inconsistent  enough  in  that  they  are  not  willing  to  rise 
to  the  position  of  the  men  of  Nicsea  as  to  sacrament  and 
ecclesiastical  organisation.  Many  wish  to  go  so  far  as  to 
comprehend  the  dogmatic  decisions  of  all  the  Ecumenical 
Councils,  although  they  shrink  from  the  religious  life  and 
institutions  that  developed  in  parallel  lines  with  these  dog- 


CATHOLIC— THE  NAME  AND  THE  THING  57 

mas.  Still  others  there  are,  who  under  the  name  of  Catholic 
would  introduce  Augustinianism  in  whole  or  in  part.  Still 
others  would  insist  upon  all  the  chief  dogmas  and  institu- 
tions characteristic  of  the  Western  Church  before  the  Refor- 
mation, and  undo  all  the  work  of  reform  except  the  single 
item  of  separation  from  the  jurisdiction  of  Rome.  But  it  is 
difficult  to  see  why  any  one  who  has  gone  so  far  should  not 
take  the  final  step.  For  it  were  mere  wantonness  to  separate 
from  the  jurisdiction  of  Rome  and  break  the  geographical 
unity  of  the  Church  for  no  other  motive  than  ecclesiastical 
independence.  The  Reformers  were  compelled  to  this 
separation  by  great  differences  of  dogma  and  institution, 
where,  they  at  least  thought,  they  followed  the  authority  of 
Holy  Scripture  and  conscience  in  its  convictions,  at  great  cost 
to  themselves.  It  is  mere  perversity  not  to  return  to  Rome 
if  the  conscience  is  convinced  that  Rome  is  right  in  all  her 
great  controversies  with  Protestantism. 

It  is  evident  from  what  has  been  said  that  there  is  not  only 
a  confusion  in  men's  minds,  through  the  different  interpre- 
tations that  they  give  to  the  name  "catholic"  and  the  things 
they  comprehend  under  it;  but  there  is,  indeed,  real  diffi- 
culty in  fixing  the  limits  of  Catholicity  by  Historical  Criticism. 
The  dust  of  centuries,  the  cinders  of  a  multitude  of  contro- 
versies, cover  it  over.  It  is  not  such  an  easy  problem  as 
many  imagine. 

IV.    CATHOLIC  AND  ROMAN 

At  this  point  it  is  necessary  to  consider  the  question  dis- 
cussed so  thoroughly  by  Harnack  as  to  the  relation  of  the 
terms  "Catholic"  and  "Roman."  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  at  the  close  of  the  third  Christian  century  "Roman"  and 
"Catholic"  were  so  closely  allied  that  they  were  practically 
identical.  What  was  it  historically  that  attached  the  terms 
"Roman"  and  "Catholic"  so  closely  together  in  the  second 
and  third  centuries?  Harnack  has  given  a  very  able  and 
thorough  study  of  this  question,  which  in  all  essential  par- 


58  CHURCH  UNITY 

ticulars  must  be  recognised  as  historically  correct.  As  he 
states,  all  the  distinctive  elements  of  Catholicity  found  their 
first  expression  in  the  Roman  church/ 

1.  The  Apostles'  Creed  is  essentially  a  Roman  symbol. 

2.  It  was  in  Rome  that  the  Canon  of  Holy  Scripture  first 
began  to  be  fixed;  and  the  Roman  Canon  gradually  became 
the  norm  for  the  entire  Church. 

3.  The  list  of  bishops  with  the  doctrine  of  apostolic  suc- 
cession appears  historically  first  in  the  Roman  church. 

4.  The  Roman  constitution  became  the  norm  even  for 
Oriental  Churches. 

5.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  to  the  Roman  church  of  the 
second  century  was  assigned  in  some  sense  the  primacy  in 
the  Christian  Church.  This  was  due  to  the  fact  that  it  was 
in  the  capital  of  the  Roman  Empire,  that  Christians  from 
all  parts  of  the  world  resorted  thither;  and  it  became  in  this 
way  cosmopolitan,  the  most  truly  representative  of  all 
churches,  the  whole  Church,  as  it  were,  in  miniature. 

Rome  was  the  centre  of  the  struggle  of  Christianity 
against  imperial  Rome,  the  chief  seat  of  martyrdom.  It 
had  the  unique  advantage  of  the  two  chief  apostles,  St. 
Peter  and  St.  Paul,  if  not  as  its  founders,  at  least  as  its  chief 
teachers,  sealing  their  testimony  with  their  blood.  It  was 
also  in  Rome  that  the  chief  victories  were  won  over  Gnosticism, 
over  Marcion,  and  later  over  the  Montanists  and  the  Dona- 
tists.  To  Rome  all  parties  appealed  for  her  opinion  in 
matters  of  controversy.  Rome  thus  became  the  citadel  of 
genuine  Christianity.  It  was  at  Rome  that  the  Christian 
institutions  received  their  richest  and  strongest  development, 
and  the  Christian  life  had  the  largest  scope  for  its  activity 
in  all  the  various  manifestations  of  holy  love,  and  the  severest 
tests  of  its  reality  and  power.  This  primacy,  we  may  say,  was 
universally  acknowledged;  although  especially  in  the  third 
century  when  the  Roman  bishops  strained  their  primacy 
so  as  to  dictate  to  other  sees,  their  dictation  was  on  several 
occasions  resented  and  resisted.  Before  the  close  of  the 
'  Dogmengeschichte,  Bd.  I,  pp.  362-71. 


CATHOLIC — THE  NAME  AND  THE  THING  59 

first  century,  Clement  writes  in  the  name  of  the  Roman 
church  a  letter  to  the  church  of  Corinth  and  sends  representa- 
tives to  heal  its  divisions,  just  as  St.  Paul  had  sent  Titus  on 
an  earlier  occasion.  Ignatius  in  his  epistle  to  Rome  recog- 
nised the  Roman  church  as  irpoKaOrjiievri^  having  the  presi- 
dency, especially  in  love.  The  aged  Polycarp  does  not 
shrink  from  a  long  journey  to  Rome  in  order  to  perfect  com- 
munion with  its  bishop.  As  Harnack  says,  Anicetus  did 
not  go  to  Polycarp,  but  Polycarp  to  him.     Irenaeus  says: 

Since,  however,  it  would  be  very  tedious,  in  such  a  volume  as  this,  to 
reckon  up  the  successions  of  all  the  churches,  we  do  put  to  confusion 
all  those  who,  in  whatever  manner,  whether  by  an  evil  self-pleasing, 
by  vainglory,  or  by  blindness  or  perverse  opinion,  assemble  in  unautho- 
rised meetings;  (we  do  this,  I  say),  by  indicating  that  tradition  derived 
from  the  apostles,  of  the  very  great,  the  very  ancient,  and  universally 
known  church  founded  and  organised  at  Rome  by  the  two  most  glorious 
apostles,  Peter  and  Paul;  as  also  (by  pointing  out)  the  faith  preached 
to  men,  which  comes  down  to  our  time  by  means  of  the  successions  of 
the  bishops.  For  it  is  a  matter  of  necessity  that  every  church  should 
agree  with  this  church,  on  account  of  its  pre-eminent  authority,  that  is, 
the  faithful  everywhere,  inasmuch  as  the  apostolical  tradition  has  been 
preserved  continuously  by  those  (faithful  men)  who  exist  everywhere. 
{Adv.  Haer.,  Ill,  iii.  2.) 

To  go  farther  would  be  to  needlessly  heap  up  witnesses. 
As  Harnack  says : 

The  proposition,  "ecclesia  Romana  semper  habuit  primatum,"  and 
the  other,  that  catholic  virtually  means  Roman  Catholic,  are  gross 
fictions  when  devised  in  honour  of  the  temporary  occupant  of  the 
Roman  see,  and  detached  from  the  significance  of  the  Eternal  City  in 
secular  history;  but  applied  to  the  church  of  the  imperial  capital  they 
contain  a  truth,  the  denial  of  which  is  equivalent  to  renouncing  the  at- 
tempt to  explain  the  process  by  which  the  church  was  unified  and 
catholicised.     (Vol.  I,  p.  371.) 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
of  our  day  is  the  heir  by  unbroken  descent  to  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  of  the  second  century,  and  that  it  is  justified 
in  using  the  name  "catholic"  as  the  name  of  the  Church, 


60  CHURCH  UNITY 

as  well  as  the  name  "Roman."  But  this  does  not  by  any 
means  imply  that  all  that  is  Roman,  or  has  been  Roman 
since  the  third  century,  may  be  included  under  the  term 
"catholic."  Nor  does  it  determine  whether  other  Christian 
Churches  may  in  our  day  rightly  claim  to  be  catholic. 
That  depends  upon  the  decision  we  may  give  to  other  ques- 
tions we  must  now  consider. 

We  must  now  return  to  the  Church  of  the  second  and 
third  centuries — the  ante-Nicene  Church.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  Church  at  that  time  was  catholic  and  that  it 
was  possessed  of  all  the  elements  of  catholicity.  As  we 
have  seen,  these  were:  (1)  A  consciousness  of  geographical 
unity  in  one  Church  spread  throughout  the  world;  (2)  A 
historical  unity  by  succession  with  the  apostles.  This  in- 
volves that  nothing  shall  be  regarded  as  catholic  that  cannot 
be  derived  as  a  normal  development  of  the  Apostolic  Church. 
(3)  A  vital  or  mystic  unity  with  Christ  was  also  essential. 
This  involves  that  Christian  life  and  worship,  as  instituted 
by  the  historic  Christ  and  maintained  by  union  with  the 
reigning  Christ,  shall  be  conserved  as  making  the  Church 
truly  holy. 

We  have  seen  that  Catholic  Christianity  expressed  its  unity 
in  the  Canon  of  Holy  Scripture  and  in  the  old  Roman  Creed, 
both  of  which  were  regarded  as  apostolic.  If  holding  these 
be  the  test  of  Catholicity,  all  organised  Christian  churches  are 
catholic — Lutheran  and  Reformed,  Congregational,  Methodist 
and  Baptist — as  well  as  Anglican,  Greek,  Oriental  and 
Roman.  But  it  is  evident  that  these  documents  give  only  a 
partial  expression  of  Catholic  Christianity.  The  writers  of 
the  second  Christian  century  exhibited  a  consensus  with  the 
Apostolic  Church  (and  also  with  the  Church  throughout  the 
world)  in  other  things  no  less  essential  than  Holy  Scripture 
and  Creed. 

The  most  essential  thing  in  Catholic  Unity  is  unity  in 
Christ.  This,  in  the  consensus  of  the  ante-Nicene  Church, 
consists  in  two  things — the  ethical  unity  of  love  and  the  re- 
ligious unity  in  the  holy  eucharist.     Both  of  these  appear 


CATHOLIC — THE  NAME  AND  THE  THING  61 

in  the  letter  of  Pliny  to  Trajan  at  the  opening  of  the  first 
Christian  century.  Both  appear  in  the  Teaching  of  the 
Apostles  at  about  the  same  time.  Christian  love,  in  its 
Christ-like  form  of  self-sacrificing  love  to  the  brethren, 
enemies  and  persecutors,  is  the  first  thing  in  the  Way  of 
Life,  one  of  the  two  ways  which  begin  this  document.  In  the 
second  part,  the  holy  eucharist,  is  the  pure  sacrifice,  the 
spiritual  food  and  drink  of  the  Church  to  be  partaken  of  only 
by  those  baptised  into  the  name  of  the  Lord. 


V.    THE  ETHICAL  PRINCIPLE  OF  CATHOLICITY 

Let  us  look  a  little  more  closely  at  the  catholic  ethical 
principle.  There  is  nothing  in  which  Catholic  consensus  is 
so  distinct  as  in  this.  Justin  and  the  other  apologists  make 
it  the  characteristic  thing  in  the  Christian  life.  Hermas  brings 
out  distinctly  Christian  love  as  a  counsel  of  perfection.  He 
puts  it  in  the  form  of  a  parable  where  the  servant  not  only 
keeps  all  the  commands  of  his  master,  but  does  a  good  work 
besides  for  the  vineyard.    This  is  then  interpreted  as  follows : 

Keep  the  commandments  of  the  Lord,  and  thou  shalt  be  well-pleasing 
to  God,  and  shalt  be  enrolled  among  the  number  of  them  that  keep  his 
commandments.  But  if  thou  do  any  good  thing  outside  the  command- 
ments of  God,  thou  shalt  win  for  thyself  more  exceeding  glory  and  shalt 
be  more  glorious  in  the  sight  of  God  than  thou  wouldst  otherwise  have 
been.     {Sim.  5:3.) 

Ignatius,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  says  that: 

Love  is  the  way  that  leadeth  up  to  God  (9).  Let  us  be  zealous  to  be 
imitators  of  the  Lord,  vying  with  each  other  who  shall  suffer  the  greater 
wrong,  who  shall  be  defrauded,  who  shall  be  set  at  naught.     (10). 

Irenaeus,  after  referring  to  the  tradition  of  doctrine  and 
ancient  constitution  of  the  Church  and  the  succession  of  the 
bishops,  mentions  in  his  climax  "the  pre-eminent  gift  of 
love,  which  is  more  precious  than  knowledge,  more  glorious 


62  CHURCH  UNITY 

than  prophecy,  and  which  excels  all  other  gifts,"*  with 
an  evident  use  of  I  Cor.  xiii;  and  he  makes  this  love  charac- 
teristic of  the  Catholic  Church  as  distinguished  from  all 
heretics.^ 

Indeed,  this  ethical  principle  of  holy  love  alone  enables 
us  to  explain  the  organic  unity  of  the  Catholic  Church  and 
the  primacy  of  Rome.  Ignatius  sees  in  the  Roman  Church 
"the  presidency  of  love."  Clement,  writing  as  the  head  of 
the  Roman  Church  to  Corinth,  uses  no  other  authority  than 
that  of  love: 

Let  him  that  hath  love  in  Christ  fulfil  the  commandments  of  Christ. 
Who  can  declare  the  bond  of  the  love  of  God  ?  Who  is  sufficient  to  tell 
the  majesty  of  its  beauty  ?  The  height,  whereunto  love  exalteth,  is  un- 
speakable. Love  joineth  us  unto  God;  love  covereth  a  multitude  of 
sins;  love  endureth  all  things,  is  long-suffering  in  all  things.  There  is 
nothing  coarse,  nothing  arrogant  in  love.  Love  hath  no  divisions,  love 
maketh  no  jseditions,  love  doeth  all  things  in  concord.  In  love  were  all 
the  elect  of  God  made  perfect;  without  love  nothing  is  well-pleasing  to 
God;  in  love  the  Master  took  us  unto  himself;  for  the  love  which  he 
had  toward  us,  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  hath  given  his  blood  for  us  by  the 
will  of  God,  and  his  flesh  for  our  flesh  and  his  life  for  our  lives.  Ye 
see,  dearly  beloved,  how  great  and  marvellous  a  thing  is  love,  and  there 
is  no  declaring  its  perfection.  Who  is  sufficient  to  be  found  therein  save 
those  to  whom  God  shall  vouchsafe  it?  Let  us  therefore  entreat  and 
ask  of  His  mercy  that  we  may  be  found  blameless  in  love,  standing  apart 
from  the  factiousness  of  men  (49,  50). 

Dionysius  of  Corinth  at  a  later  date,  writing  to  Soter,  the 
bishop  of  Rome,  says: 

From  the  beginning  it  has  been  your  practice  to  do  good  to  all  the 
brethren  in  various  ways,  and  to  send  contributions  to  many  churches 
in  every  city.  Thus  relieving  the  want  of  the  needy  and  making  pro- 
vision for  the  brethren  in  the  mines,  by  the  gifts  which  you  have  sent 
from  the  beginning.  You  Romans  keep  up  the  hereditary  customs  of 
the  Romans,  which  your  blessed  bishop  Soter  has  not  only  maintained, 
but  also  added  to,  furnishing  an  abundance  of  supplies  to  the  saints 
and  encouraging  the  brethren  from  abroad  with  blessed  words  as  a  lov- 
ing father  his  children,      Eusebius,  Church  History,  IV,  23:10. 

Mv.  8.  »iv.  7,  9. 


CATHOLIC— THE  NAME  AND  THE  THING  63 

Hippolytus,  schismatic  bishop  of  Rome  and  martyr,  com- 
pares the  Church  to  a  ship  tossed  in  the  great  deep  of  the 
world,  whose  skilled  pilot  is  Christ,  and  the  ropes  that  bind  her 
together  are  the  love  of  Christ/  The  unity  of  the  Church 
is  in  holy  love  which  binds  Christians  to  Christ  and  to  one 
another.  The  primacy  of  Rome  was  recognised  because  she 
was  the  champion  of  Christianity  in  holy  love.  The  church 
of  Smyrna  says: 

The  martyrs,  as  disciples  and  imitators  of  the  Lord,  we  cherish  as 
they  deserve  for  their  matchless  affection  toward  their  own  king  and 
teacher.  May  it  be  our  lot  also  to  be  found  partakers  and  fellow- 
disciples  with  them.     (17). 

Rome  was  the  martyr  Church  above  all  others.  In  her 
the  two  chief  apostles,  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  suffered.  In 
her,  a  great  multitude  from  all  lands  perished  in  the  dreadful 
blood-bath  of  Nero,  which  is  the  undertone  of  the  book  of 
Revelation.  In  her,  Ignatius  of  Antioch,  Clement,  Hippo- 
lytus, Justin  and  a  host  of  Christian  heroes  suffered  and 
died  for  the  faith.  In  her,  St.  Cecilia,  St.  Agnes  and  a  multi- 
tude of  matrons  and  virgins  offered  up  themselves  in  loving 
sacrifice  to  Christ.  The  Roman  Church  has  its  foundations 
in  martyrs'  blood,  and  this  more  than  anything  else  makes  her 
pre-eminent  and  perpetuates  her  pre-eminence.  In  Rome 
one  feels  close  to  the  martyrs,  in  touch  with  original  Chris- 
tianity. If  only  the  Roman  Church  had  maintained^  her 
pre-eminence  in  love,  no  one  would  ever  have  denied  her 
primacy.  If  she  had  been  content  to  follow  the  Master  as 
the  servant  of  all  the  Churches,  she  would  have  easily  ruled 
them  all.  But  when  she  began  to  substitute  legal  constitu- 
tions and  physical  force  for  the  moral  influence  of  love,  she 
erred  from  the  fundamental  catholic  principle.  But  what 
other  Church  can  cast  the  stone  at  her  for  this  fault  ?  It  is 
a  common  fault  of  them  all.  If  only  Rome  would  renew 
her  first  love,  the  reunion  of  the  Catholic  Church  would  be 
assured. 

*  (Jhrist  and  Antichrist,  59. 


64  CHURCH  UNITY 


VI.    THE  RELIGIOUS  PRINCIPLE  OF  CATHOLICITY 

The  holy  eucharist  was  the  religious  principle  of  union 
with  Christ.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  consensus  of 
the  ante-Nicene  Church  was  that  it  was  an  eating  of  the  flesh 
of  Christ  and  the  drinking  of  his  blood  as  a  sacrifice.  It  is 
most  common  to  regard  it,  as  in  the  Teaching  of  the  Apostles , 
as  a  fulfilment  of  the  prediction  of  the  pure  sacrifice  of  the 
prophet  Malachi.^    Thus  Ignatius  early  in  the  century  says: 

I'desire  the  bread  of  God  which  is  the  flesh  of  Christ,  who  was  of  the 
seed  of  David,  and  for  a  draught  I  desire  his  blood,  which  is  love  in- 
corruptible. {Romans,  7.)  .  .  .  Be  ye  careful  to  observe  one  eucharist, 
for  there  is  one  flesh  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  one  cup  into  union 
with  his  blood;  there  is  one  altar,  as  there  is  one  bishop,  together  with 
the  presbytery  and  the  deacons,  my  fellow-servants.     (Phil.  4.) 

Justin  says: 

For  not  as  common  bread  or  as  common  drink  do  we  receive  these; 
but  in  like  manner  as  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour,  having  been  made  flesh 
by  the  word  of  God,  had  both  flesh  and  blood  for  our  salvation,  so  like- 
wise have  we  been  taught  that  the  food  which  is  blessed  by  the  prayer 
of  his  word,  and  from  which  our  blood  and  flesh  by  transmutation  are 
nourished,  is  the  flesh  and  blood  of  that  Jesus  who  was  made  flesh. 
(Apd.,  I,  66.).  ...  So  he  then  (that  is,  Malachi)  speaks  of  those  Gen- 
tiles, namely  us,  who  in  every  place  offer  sacrifice  to  him;  i.  e.,  the  bread 
of  the  eucharist  and  also  the  cup  of  the  eucharist.     {Trypho.,  41.) 

Irenseus  says: 

He  [that  is,  Jesus]  has  acknowledged  the  cup  (which  is  a  part  of  the 
creation)  as  his  own  blood,  from  which  he  bedews  our  blood;  and  the 
bread  (also  a  part  of  the  creation)  he  has  established  as  his  own  body 
from  which  he  gives  increase  to  our  bodies.     (Adv.  Haer.,  V,  2:2.) 

The  consensus  of  the  ante-Nicene  Church  is  that  the  eucha- 
rist is  a  thank-offering,  after  the  teaching  of  Paul.  But 
about  this  consensus  gathered  in  the  course  of  time  a  cloud 
of  theories  which  has  obscured  the  original  meaning  of  this 

»  Mai.  i.  11, 


CATHOLIC— THE  NAME  AND  THE  THING  65 

essential  institution  of  the  Christian  religion.  Having  lost 
sight  of  the  ancient  distinction  between  different  kinds  of 
sacrifices,  when  the  Augustinian  doctrine  of  sin  became 
dominant  in  the  Church,  the  conception  of  the  sacrifice  as  a 
sin-offering  to  a  great  extent  took  the  place  of  the  primitive 
conception  that  it  was  a  eucharistic  or  thank-offering. 

The  participation  in  the  holy  communion  as  a  sacrificial 
feast  was  the  consensus  of  the  ante-Nicene  Church.  This 
has  also  been  overlaid  with  theories  as  to  the  mode  of  the 
presence  of  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ,  which  do  not  be- 
long to  the  Catholic  Faith.  It  is  one  of  the  most  important 
movements  of  our  times  that  there  has  been  a  return  to  the 
original  Catholic  conception,  not  only  in  the  Anglican  Church, 
but  in  the  Roman  Church,  and  in  many  Protestant  theo- 
logians. Here  again  is  a  thread  which  may  soon  become  a 
rope  to  bind  the  Church  in  Catholic  Unity. 

I  have  taken  considerable  time  to  unfold  these  more  vital 
principles  of  catholic  unity,  because  these  are  usually  ig- 
nored in  the  discussions  of  the  subject,  in  the  interest  of  the 
more  external  marks  of  dogma  and  ecclesiastical  organisa- 
tion. In  fact,  the  development  of  the  historical  episcopate 
was  due  to  the  needs  of  a  proper  celebration  of  the  holy 
eucharist,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  epistles  of  Ignatius,  as  well 
as  to  the  needs  of  ecclesiastical  government  and  discipline. 
In  the  ancient  Catholic  Church,  as  in  the  Church  of  all  ages, 
vital  principles  determine  the  formal  principles,  although  later 
the  vital  principles  are  too  often  cramped  by  the  forms  of 
their  own  creation. 

Although  the  Church  of  Rome  in  its  dogmatic  teaching  has 
overlaid  the  Catholic  conception  of  the  holy  eucharist  with 
the  dogma  of  transubstantiation,  and  pressed  the  eucharist 
behind  the  sin-offering,  yet  that  cannot  be  said  of  the  cere- 
mony of  the  mass,  which  is  free  in  its  language  and  ceremonies 
from  both  of  these  conceptions.  No  one  can  deny  that  the 
Roman  Church,  the  Greek  Church  and  all  the  Oriental 
Churches  are  catholic  in  this  particular.  But  what  of  the 
Protestant  bodies?    Is  the  Church  of  England  catholic  in 


66  CHURCH  UNITY 

this  respect?  Do  its  standards  represent  the  catholic  ex- 
perience in  the  celebration  of  the  holy  eucharist?  The 
"Articles  of  Religion"  cannot  be  so  explained;  "The  Book 
of  Common  Prayer"  may  be;  but  it  is  at  least  doubtful 
whether  that  was  the  intention  of  its  original  authors.  It 
was,  however,  the  intent  of  the  Elizabethan  Reformers  to 
make  it  possible  for  Catholic  and  Protestant  to  use  the 
"Common  Prayer"  alike.  This  may  be  shown  from  the 
history  of  the  times.  The  best  that  can  be  said  of  other 
Protestant  churches  is  that  they  are  not  anti-Catholic  in  this 
particular,  and  that  there  is  a  tendency  among  them  to  return 
to  the  primitive  Catholic  conception. 

VII.    GEOGRAPHICAL  UNITY  AND  CATHOLICITY 

We  shall  now  resume  the  more  formal  tests  and  apply  them 
also.  Geographical  unity  has  been  lost  by  the  Protestant 
churches — by  the  Church  of  England  more  than  by  any  other; 
for  the  Church  of  England  is  so  strictly  a  National  Church 
that  she  is  confined  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  race.  She  not  only 
has  no  communion  with  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  but 
she  also  has  no  commuilion  at  present  with  the  sister  National 
Churches.  In  this  respect  she  is  farther  off  from  catholicity 
than  the  Lutheran  Church,  which  is  represented  in  many 
lands,  and  which  even  in  the  United  States  is  a  stronger  body 
numerically  than  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  The 
Church  of  England  is  still  farther  off  from  Catholicity  than 
the  Reformed  or  Presbyterian  family  of  Churches,  which  is 
the  most  widespread  and  most  numerous  of  all  Protestant 
bodies,  and  which  has  always  recognised  the  Anglican  and 
Lutheran  bodies  as  her  sisters,  and  has  always  been  ready 
to  commune  with  them.  The  Reformed  or  Presbyterian 
Churches  have  always  made  more  of  Catholicity  in  its  geo- 
graphical form  than  the  Church  of  England.  One  looks  in 
vain  in  the  "Articles  of  Religion"  for  any  conception  of  a 
Catholic  Church.  But  in  the  Westminster  Confession  it  is 
very  prominent 


CATHOLIC— THE  NAME  AND  THE  THING  67 

I.  The  catholic  or  universal  Church,  which  is  invisible,  consists  of  the 
whole  number  of  the  elect,  that  have  been,  are,  or  shall  be  gathered  into 
one,  under  Christ,  the  head  thereof;  and  is  the  spouse,  the  body,  the 
fulness  of  him  that  filleth  all  in  all.  II.  The  visible  Church,  which  is 
also  catholic  or  universal  under  the  gospel  (not  confined  to  one  nation 
as  before  under  the  Law)  consists  of  all  those  throughout  the  world, 
that  profess  the  true  religion,  together  with  their  children;  and  is  the 
kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  house  and  family  of  God,  out  of 
which  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation.     (Chap,  xxv.) 

The  Westminster  divines  conceived  of  an  Ecumenical 
Council  of  Reformed  Churches.  Their  chief  purpose  was 
to  reform  the  Church  of  England  in  accordance  with  the 
teachings  of  Holy  Scripture  and  the  example  of  the  best 
Reformed  Churches  of  the  continent,  in  order  to  closer 
union  and  fellowship  with  them.  But  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land held  aloof,  content  to  be  simply  a  national  Church. 
The  Church  of  England  asserts  her  catholicity  in  apostolical 
succession  through  the  threefold  ministry.  For  this  she 
has  struggled  as  if  she  realised  that  her  very  existence  de- 
pended upon  it.  But  is  she  in  this  respect  so  very  much 
superior  to  other  sister  Churches  of  the  Reformation?  It 
may  be  doubted.  For  many  of  them  likewise  claim  apostol- 
ical succession  for  their  ministry — they  also  have  the  three 
orders — bishops,  elders  and  deacons;  only  their  orders  are 
orders  of  the  congregation  and  not  of  the  diocese;  and  they 
claim  that,  though  this  succession  for  many  centuries  ran 
through  a  line  of  presbyters  and  not  diocesan  bishops, 
these  presbyters  were  the  only  Catholic  bishops,  the  bishops 
of  the  first  and  second  centuries  being  parochial  and  not  di- 
ocesan. So  far  as  a  reconciliation  with  Rome  is  concerned, 
since  the  decision  of  Leo  XIII.  the  Church  of  England  has 
no  advantage  whatever  over  the  Reformed  Churches  in  this 
matter  of  apostolic  succession.  Any  advantage  she  may 
have  is  limited  to  her  own  estimation  of  herself.  Newman 
tells  us  how  he  was  caught  in  the  Anglican  Via  Media: 

The  Anglican  disputant  took  his  stand  upon  antiquity  of  apostolicity, 
the  Roman  upon  catholicity.    The  Anglican  said  to  the  Roman:  "There 


68  CHURCH  UNITY 

is  but  one  faith,  the  ancient,  and  you  have  not  kept  it."  The  Roman 
retorted:  "There  is  but  one  Church,  the  Catholic,  and  you  are  out  of  it." 
The  Anglican  urged:  "Your  special  beliefs,  practices,  modes  of  action 
are  nowhere  in  antiquity."  The  Roman  objected:  "You  do  not  com- 
municate with  any  one  Church  besides  your  own  and  its  offshoots,  and 
you  have  discarded  principles,  doctrines,  sacraments,  and  usages,  which 
are  and  ever  have  been  received  in  the  East  and  the  West."  .  .  .  The 
true  Church  as  defined  in  the  creeds  was  both  catholic  and  apostolic; 
now,  as  I  viewed  the  controversy  in  which  I  was  engaged,  England  and 
Rome  had  divided  these  notes  or  prerogatives  between  them;  the  cause 
lay  thus,  Apostolicity  versus  Catholicity.  {Apologia,  chap.  iii.  new 
edition,  1892,  p.  106.) 

He  tells  us  how  it  was  the  words  of  St.  Augustine — Securus 
judical  orbis  terrarum — quoted  by  Wiseman  in  an  article  in 
the  Dublin  Review,  August,  1839,  that  opened  his  eyes  to 
see  that 

the  deliberate  judgment  in  which  the  whole  Church  at  length  rests  and 
acquiesces,  is  an  infallible  prescription  and  final  sentence  against  such 
portions  of  it  as  protest  and  secede  (p.  117). 

Wiseman  in  that  article  said: 

St.  Augustine  has  a  golden  sentence  on  that  subject,  which  should  be 
an  axiom  in  theology.^  "  Therefore  the  entire  world  judges  with  security 
that  they  are  not  good  who  separate  themselves  from  the  entire  world, 
in  whatever  part  of  the  world"  (p.  154). 

This  sentence  made  Newman  a  Roman  Catholic.  He  saw 
clearly,  what  multitudes  have  seen  since,  that  you  cannot 
build  catholicity  on  apostolicity  alone;  and  that,  where  these 
are  brought  into  conflict,  catholicity  in  the  narrower  sense 
of  universality  is  sure  to  win. 

It  has  been  too  often  overlooked  by  Anglicans  that  "cath- 
olic" comprehends  much  more  than  apostolicity.  It  also 
includes  holiness  or  purity.  It  was  the  exaggeration  of  that 
attribute  that  induced  the  ancient  Donatists  to  separate  from 
the  Church,  and  that  influenced  also  the  English  Separatists, 
too  often  confounded  with  Puritans  and  Presbyterians.     It 

*  He  quotes  it  in  Latin  from  Contra  Epistolam  Parmeniani,  III,  4, 
and  translates  it. 


CATHOLIC— THE  NAME  AND  THE  THING  69 

was  the  emphasis  upon  pure  doctrine,  pure  discipline  and 
pure  Hfe,  as  more  important  than  unity,  that  really  influenced 
to  a  great  extent  the  whole  Protestant  movement,  and  specially 
those  bodies  which  have  separated  from  the  Protestant 
national  Churches. 

As  we  have  seen,  the  attributes  Ao/y,  apostolic  and  catholic 
are  so  involved  that  they  ought  not  to  be  separated — the 
three  blend  in  true  catholic  unity,  the  three  are  all  involved 
in  the  saying  of  Vincent  of  Lirens:  ''quod  ubique,  qiood 
semper f  quod  ab  omnibus  creditum  est."  This  is  often  mis- 
understood by  taking  it  out  of  its  context.  Vincent  him- 
self defines  ubique  as  universality,  semper  as  antiquity  and 
ab  omnibus  as  consensus — and  the  consensus  not  as  the  con- 
sensus of  all  Christians,  but  as  sacerdotal  and  magisterial 
consensus  in  the  Church.^    " 

The  three  are  indeed  combined  in  this  sentence: 

He  must  collate  and  consult  and  interrogate  the  opinions  of  the  ancients, 
of  those,  namely,  who,  though  living  in  divers  times  and  places,  yet  con- 
tinuing in  the  communion  and  faith  of  the  one  catholic  Church,  stand 
forth  acknowledged  and  approved  authorities.    Ibid,  3. 

Each  one  of  these  terms  qualifies  the  other,  and  no  one 
can  be  regarded  as  sufficient  apart  by  itself.  Doubtless  the 
Church  should  be  holy  as  united  to  Christ  in  all  its  parts, 
that  is  the  most  essential  thing;  it  should  also  be  apostolic, 
that  is  next  in  importance;  but  it  must  also  be  catholic  in 
the  narrower  sense  of  universality;  in  order  to  be  catholic 
in  the  larger  sense  of  Catholic  Unity,  blending  the  three  at- 
tributes. 

VIII.    THE  CATHOLIC  REACTION 

It  depends  altogether  on  what  tests  you  apply,  whether 
an  individual  or  a  Church  can  be  considered  catholic  or  not. 
If  we  would  be  catholic,  we  cannot  become  catholic  by  merely 
calling  ourselves  by  that  name.     Unless  the  name  corresponds 

*  Commonitorium,  2. 


70  CHURCH  UNITY 

with  the  thing,  it  is  a  sham,  and  it  is  a  shame.  Many  earnest 
Christians,  not  only  Anglicans,  but  men  of  every  name  and 
denomination  of  Christians,  are  under  the  influence  of  a 
catholic  reaction  and  are  sincerely  desirous  of  being  truly 
catholic,  and  especially  of  regaining  the  Catholic  Unity  of  the 
Church.  When  we  have  regained  the  thing,  then  we  may 
with  propriety  call  ourselves  by  the  name. 

A  great  step  forward  in  the  catholic  direction  was  taken 
when  the  Quadrilateral  of  Unity  was  adopted  jointly  by 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  America  and  the  Church 
of  England.  It  is  not  a  perfect  statement.  It  is  easy  to  criti- 
cise it.  It  does  not  in  all  respects  correspond  with  Catho- 
licity. It  exceeds  it  in  some  respects,  it  falls  short  in  others. 
But  it  is  the  best  platform  of  Catholic  Unity  which  has 
thus  far  been  proposed.  The  truest  Catholicity  is  brotherly 
love,  and  if  the  Quadrilateral  could  be  used  with  this  vital 
force  beneath  it,  it  would  accomplish  a  great  work  in  the 
reconciliation,  recatholicisation  and  the  eventual  reunifica- 
tion of  the  Christian  Church. 

The  reason  why  it  has  not  been  more  effective  is  that  the 
bishops  have  done  nothing  whatever  to  make  it  effective, 
or  even  to  convince  others  that  they  really  accepted  it  them- 
selves.    A  magnificent  opportunity  has  been  thrown  away. 

Nothing  has  so  much  injured  the  Church  of  England  in 
the  past  as  its  arrogant  exclusiveness  as  a  national  Church. 
That  has  brought  her  into  the  present  crisis  of  her  history, 
torn  by  faction  and  reproached  by  a  multitude  of  enemies. 
Her  daughter,  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States,  has  too  often  exhibited  this  baneful  temper 
and  so  repelled  multitudes  who  would  otherwise  have  gladly 
united  with  her. 

If  she  permit  that  evil  spirit,  which  is  at  the  root  of  all  the 
disasters  to  British  Christianity  since  the  Reformation,  again 
to  become  dominant,  she  will  forfeit  her  leadership  as  the 
banner-bearer  of  Catholic  Unity.  If  she  arrogate  to  herself 
the  name  "Catholic,"  which  is  regarded  as  the  common  in- 
heritance of  Christianity  in  some  sense  .by  all  who  use  the 


CATHOLIC— THE  NAME  AND  THE  THING  71 

Apostles*  Creed,  no  one  will  recognise  her  right  to  it  but 
herself;  a  multitude  of  her  own  clergy  and  people  will  be 
ashamed  of  their  Church;  and  she  will  become  the  mock 
of  historical  critics,  who  will  not  fail  to  test  her  by  her  own 
history,  as  well  as  by  the  history  of  the  Church  at  large,  and 
by  her  relative  importance  in  American  Christianity. 

The  greatest  movement  now  going  on  in  the  world  is  the 
Catholic  reaction;  it  is  too  great  a  movement  to  be  guided 
or  controlled  by  any  leadership.  God's  Holy  Spirit  is  break- 
ing the  way  for  the  revival,  the  recatholicisation  and  reunion 
of  Christendom,  in  holy  love. 

It  must  be  said,  however,  that  most  Protestants  do  not  as 
yet  wish  to  be  Catholic;  they  desire  simply  to  be  Christians; 
they  would  have  what  they  regard  as  the  simple  Christianity 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles;  they  would  reform  the  Church 
after  the  teachings  of  the  New  Testament.  A  large  party 
would  go  farther  still  in  an  anti-catholic  direction,  and  seek 
the  essence  of  Christianity  underlying  the  New  Testament, 
and  especially  the  real  substance  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus. 
It  is  certainly  true  that  to  be  Catholic  is  one  thing  and  to  be 
Christian  is  another  thing;  the  latter  is  more  important  than 
the  former.  We  should  not  identify  them.  In  these  days 
men  will  appropriate  just  so  much  of  Christianity  as  they 
can  use,  and  no  more.  You  cannot  constrain  them  by  perse- 
cution, whether  physical,  ecclesiastical  or  social.  You 
cannot  compel  them  by  authority,  whether  of  Church  or  of 
Bible.  And,  after  all,  what  is  it  that  the  Lord  looks  at  most 
of  all  ?  It  is  not  wha,t  we  name  ourselves,  it  is  not  what  we 
profess,  it  is  not  what  we  teach  to  others;  it  is  what  we  are 
and  what  we  do.  Far  better  a  minimum  of  the  sacred  de- 
posit of  Christianity  well  used  than  the  maximum  "laid 
up  in  a  napkin."^  And  yet  the  earnest  Christian  should 
not  be  content  with  the  minimum.  Loving,  growing  Chris- 
tianity strives  for  the  maximum.  Christianity  so  soon  as 
it  began  to  grow,  grew  into  Catholicity.  The  Church  was 
Catholic  in  its  early  manhood,  in  its  heroic  age.  A  Church 
» Luke  xix.  20. 


72  CHURCH  UNITY 

which  is  content  to  be  simply  Christian  remains  in  its  infancy. 
A  Christian  who  is  content  with  the  essence  of  Christianity 
remains  in  his  babyhood;  as  Paul  clearly  expresses  it — 
"tossed  to  and  fro  and  carried  about  with  every  wind  of 
doctrine,  by  the  sleight  of  men,  in  craftiness,  after  the  wiles  of 
error."  ^  That  is  the  exact  situation,  and  always  has  been, 
and  always  will  be,  the  situation  of  those  who  wish  to  have 
only,  what  they  think  to  be,  the  essentials  of  Christianity. 
But  those  who  would  attain  Christian  manhood,  either  as 
churches  or  as  individuals,  must  rise  to  true  Catholicity, 
at  least  in  some  measure.     As  Paul  continues  to  say: 

that  they,  speaking  truth  in  love,  may  grow  up  in  all  things  into  Him, 
which  is  the  Head,  even  Christ;  from  whom  all  the  body  fitly  framed  and 
knit  together  through  that  which  every  joint  supplieth,  according  to 
the  working  in  due  measure  of  each  several  part,  maketh  the  increase 
of  the  body  unto  the  building  up  of  itself  in  love.     (Eph.  iv.  16, 18). 

» Eph.  iv.  14. 


IV 

THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE 

The  aspirations  for  the  reunion  of  Christendom  that  have 
been  felt  by  large  numbers  of  Christians  in  most,  if  not  all, 
the  denominations,  have  reached  the  fullest  and  strongest 
expression  in  recent  times,  in  the  four  articles  proposed  by 
the  House  of  Bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States,  October  20,  1886,  as  a  basis  of  ap- 
proach for  such  reunion.  These  were  subsequently  adopted, 
with  slight  modifications,  in  1888,  by  the  Lambeth  Con- 
ference, representing  the  Church  of  England  and  her  daugh- 
ters throughout  the  world. 

In  January,  1887,  in  the  Presbyterian  Review,  of  which 
I  was  then  senior  editor,  I  said  that  these  articles  "are  in 
my  judgment  entirely  satisfactory,  provided  nothing  more 
is  meant  by  their  authors  than  their  language  expressly 
conveys." 

I  subsequently  reiterated  this  statement: 

The  four  terms  that  are  set  forth  therein  as  "essential  to  the  restora- 
tion of  unity  among  the  divided  branches  of  Christendom"  are  in  my 
judgment  entirely  satisfactory,  provided  nothing  more  is  meant  by  their 
authors  than  their  language  expressly  conveys.  There  is  room  for 
some  difference  of  interpretation;  but  these  terms  ought  to  be  received 
in  the  same  generous  manner  in  which  they  are  offered,  in  the  hope 
that  the  differences  will  be  removed  by  conference  and  discussion. 
{Whither?  p.  263.) 

I  have  seen  no  reason  to  change  the  judgment  then  ex- 
pressed. The  evolutions  that  are  now  taking  place  in  the 
different  denominations  in  the  revision  of  Prayer-Book  and 
of  Creed,  in  the  reorganization  of  Christian  life  and  work, 
and  in  the  adoption  of  new  methods  for  evangelisation  and 

73 


74  CHURCH  UNITY 

Christian  nurture,  all  point  in  the  same  direction,  and  show 
that  the  Christian  denominations  are  moving  under  the 
sway  of  an  irresistible  impulse  into  closer  combinations  that 
will  ere  long  result  in  federation,  and  at  last  in  consolidation. 
The  articles  of  Reunion  are  the  following: 

(1)  "The  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  as  the  re- 
vealed Word  of  God;  (2)  The  Apostles'  Creed  as  the  baptismal  Sym- 
bol, and  the  Nicene  Creed  as  the  sufficient  statement  of  the  Christian 
Faith;  (3)  The  two  Sacraments — Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord 
— ministered  with  unfailing  use  of  Christ's  words  of  institution  and  of 
the  elements  ordained  by  him;  (4)  The  Historic  Episcopate,  locally 
adapted  in  the  methods  of  its  administration  to  the  varying  needs  of 
the  nations  and  peoples  called  of  God  into  the  Unity  of  His  Church." 

We  reserve  for  the  present  a  discussion  of  the  first  three 
articles,  and  shall  devote  our  attention  here  to  the  fourth ;  the 
Historic  Episcopate. 

The  great  difficulty  to  be  overcome  is  the  Historic  Episco- 
pate. We  ought  not  to  be  surprised  at  this,  for  the  struggles 
of  British  Christianity  since  the  Reformation  have  been  cen- 
tred in  questions  of  ihe  government  and  discipline  of  the 
Church.  The  debates  about  ecclesiastical  government  have 
been  complicated  with  the  contests  over  political  govern- 
ment. The  historical  student  traces  the  development  of 
ecclesiastical  government  in  Great  Britain  and  America  in 
the  midst  of  the  evolutions  of  civil  government.  Political 
parties  and  ecclesiastical  parties  have  to  a  very  great  extent 
coincided  in  the  history  of  Great  Britain. 

The  Historical  Episcopate  has  been  historically  compli- 
cated with  the  development  of  the  intricate  relations  of 
Church  and  State.  The  same  difficult  relation  is  now  one  of 
the  chief  influences  at  work  in  favour  of  restoring  the  His- 
torical Episcopate  to  those  Churches  thart  have  neglected 
it  or.  discarded  it. 

I.    CHURCH  AND   STATE 

Even  the  greatest  champions  of  the  jure  divino  theory  of 
Church  government  have  not  escaped  the  subtile  Erastian- 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE  75 

ism  which,  even  when  it  declines  to  put  the  supreme  authority 
over  the  Church  in  the  hands  of  the  civil  magistrate,  never- 
theless insensibly  assimilates  the  operations  of  church 
courts  to  the  civil  courts,  and  the  methods  of  administration 
of  bishops  and  presbyters  to  those  of  magistrates  and  parlia- 
ments. The  American  Republic,  when  it  severed  for  the 
most  part  the  Church  from  the  State,  did  not  altogether  avoid 
the  influence  of  civil  government  upon  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment. It  is  a  pleasing  fiction  that  the  divorce  of  Church 
and  State  is  complete  in  the  United  States.  But  it  becomes 
evident  so  soon  as  strife  breaks  out  in  any  congregation,  or 
an  irreconcilable  battle  is  waged  between  parties  in  the  de- 
nominations, that  the  civil  courts  are  the  courts  of  last  resort 
even  for  ecclesiastical  affairs.  And  now  that  the  Church 
is  becoming  more  ethical  and  less  dogmatic,  more  practical 
and  less  theoretical,  it  is  plain  that  the  Church  and  the  State 
must  come  to  an  understanding  upon  the  mixed  questions 
of  Public  Education,  National  Religion,  Marriage  and 
Divorce;  the  care  of  the  sick,  the  disabled,  the  poor  and  the 
criminal  classes;  and  in  the  entire  field  of  social  and  industrial 
life.  This  fiction  of  a  divorce  of  Church  and  State  has  been 
a  will-o'-the-wisp  that  has  brought  us  into  many  difficult 
and  dangerous  places.  It  is  necessary  that  Church  and 
State  should  come  into  closer  union,  in  order  to  accomplish 
the  great  aims  of  humanity  as  well  as  of  Christianity.  The 
Church  cannot  abstain  from  those  ethical  questions  that  are 
the  controlling  principles  of  all  sound  government.  There 
must  be  harmony  between  Church  and  State,  or  else  there 
will  be  conflict.  The  worst  position  that  can  be  taken  by 
the  Church  is  indifference,  isolation,  and  abstinence  from 
the  religious  and  moral  obligations  of  public  education, 
good  citizenship,  sound  government,  social  life  and  public 
morality.  Christian  Ethics  comprehends  all  these  things. 
If  the  Church  in  America  has  neglected  them,  it  is  because 
it  has  not  apprehended  and  practised  the  heights  and  breadths 
of  Christian  Ethics. 

The  evil  effects  of  the  divorce  of  Church  and  State  are  mak- 


76  CHURCH  UNITY 

ing  it  evident  to  thinking  men  in  all  denominations  that  in 
some  way  a  concord  must  be  established  between  the  de- 
nominations, in  order  that  the  State  may  not  obstruct  the 
advance  of  Christianity  in  the  nation,  and  put  itself  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  Church  in  the  great  religious  and  moral  needs  of 
humanity. 

The  so-called  American  theory  of  the  separation  of  Church 
and  State  has  had  two  results.  1.  On  the  one  side,  the  State 
has  been  relieved  from  the  burdens  of  the  support  of  the 
Church  and  the  duties  of  religion.  The  influence  of  the 
Church  upon  the  State  is  no  longer  direct,  immediate,  and 
pervasive  as  a  recognised  force  influencing  all  actions;  but 
it  is  indirect,  subtile  and  mediate,  through  the  influence  of 
the  Church  upon  its  adherents  among  the  various  offices  of 
the  government.  The  State  has  been  relieved  of  the  support 
of  the  Church,  and  also  to  a  great  extent  of  higher  education 
and  of  public  charities.  This  enormous  burden  has  thus  been 
shifted  from  the  shoulders  of  the  whole  people  to  the  shoulders 
of  the  pious,  benevolent  and  self-sacrificing  citizens.  The 
great  mass  of  the  indifferent,  selfish  and  irreligious,  whether 
poor,  comfortable  or  rich,  escape  these  burdens,  which  then 
fall  upon  a  portion  of  the  community  in  double  measure.  It 
is  evident  that  many  of  the  largest  estates  in  America  are 
in  the  hands  of  men  who  do  little,  if  anything,  for  public 
charity,  higher  education  and  religion.  It  is  easy  to  see  what 
enormous  savings  they  make  in  this  respect  when  compared 
with  the  land-owners  and  bond-holders  of  other  countries. 
The  great  moral,  religious  and  educational  forces  which  are 
most  potent  to  protect  their  persons  and  property,  are  supn 
ported  by  others;  and  to  this  extent  many  of  our  millionaires 
are  as  truly  dependent  upon  public  charity  as  the  beggars 
at  their  gates. 

The  United  States  Congress  and  the  Legislatures  of  the  sev- 
eral States  pay  little,  if  any,  attention  to  the  desires  of  the  Chris- 
tian public,  as  expressed  in  the  various  church  courts.  They 
are  much  more  influenced  by  an  organised  body  of  merchants, 
whether  this  is  composed  of   a    few   men   at  the  head  of 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE  77 

great  trusts,  or  of  many  voters  in  various  trade  associations. 
The  splitting  up  of  the  Church  into  so  many  conflicting  de- 
nominations, and  the  organisation  of  ecclesiastical  bodies 
without  regard  to  the  territorial  divisions  of  the  towns  and 
States,  have  marred  their  influence.  This  has  been  over- 
come in  recent  years  in  several  of  the  denominations  by 
making  the  ecclesiastical  territories  correspond  with  the 
political.  But  much  more  needs  to  be  accomplished  in  this 
regard.  It  is  the  better  organisation  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  that  gives  it  more  influence  with  politicians.  Let 
us  not  deceive  ourselves  by  imagining  that  it  is  all  due  to  the 
wiles  of  the  Jesuits,  or  to  the  power  of  priests  to  influence 
voters.  The  Church  has  lost  immensely  in  its  influence  upon 
the  State.  The  Protestant  Churches  have  less  influence 
than  the  Roman  Catholic,  notwithstanding  the  Protestants 
are  vastly  greater  in  numerical  strength,  in  wealth,  in  insti- 
tutions of  learning  and  in  literature. 

2.  The  Church  has  lost  largely  in  its  power  to  influence  the 
State,  but  the  State  has  gained  largely  in  its  influence  over 
the  Church.     This  has  been  in  two  directions. 

(a)  The  State  has  the  supreme  authority  over  the  Church 
in  all  material  affairs — over  its  property,  so  far  as  the  Church 
is  a  visible  organisation;  and  over  its  communicants  and  its 
office-bearers,  as  having  rights  of  contract,  and  as  having 
character  and  reputation.  It  is  really  only  in  so  far  as  the 
Church  is  immaterial  that  it  is  exempt  from  the  authority  of 
the  State.  The  Church  has  no  more  freedom  than  a  Masonic 
Lodge,  or  an  association  of  liquor-dealers. 

(b)  The  State  has  also  a  subtile  influence  upon  the 
Church.  The  civil  government  and  the  civil  courts  have 
exerted  an  irresistible  influence  upon  the  ecclesiastical  gov- 
ernment and  the  ecclesiastical  courts,  and  thereby  modified 
to  a  great  extent  all  religious  organisations  in  the  United 
States. 

The  Episcopal  Churches  have  the  executive  department  of 
Church  government  efficiently  organised,  and  are  ever  ready 
to  speak  and  act  through  the  bishops.     The  non-Episcopal 


78  CHURCH  UNITY 

Churches  have  no  other  executives  than  temporary  moder- 
ators, presidents  and  clerks,  who  are  unable  to  go  beyond 
their  instructions,  and  are  not  competent  to  act  in  the  emer- 
gencies that  may  arise  in  the  Church  or  the  State,  or  in  the 
complicated  questions  of  education  and  social  life.  Banks 
and  railroads,  trusts  and  commercial  companies,  cannot  get 
on  without  presidents.  Academies  have  their  principals, 
colleges  and  universities  their  presidents  and  chancellors. 
The  city  has  its  mayor,  the  State  its  governor,  the  United 
States  their  president.  There  can  be  no  efficiency  in  com- 
mercial, social,  educational  and  civil  life  without  the  executive 
head.  The  Church  never  can  be  efficient  without  such  ex- 
ecutives in  the  several  grades  of  the  territorial  organisation. 
The  inefficiency  of  Protestants  is  largely  due  to  the  neglect 
of  the  executive  function  of  the  Historical  Episcopate. 

Owing  to  the  irresistible  influence  of  the  civil  government 
upon  the  ecclesiastical  government,  the  denominations  have 
been  gradually  assimilated.  Let  any  one  compare  the  Con- 
gregationalists  of  New  England  with  the  Congregationalists 
of  Old  England,  and  he  will  see  that  the  former  have  ad- 
vanced very  far  in  the  direction  of  Presbyterianism,  in  the 
authority  given  to  councils  to  license  and  to  ordain  ministers, 
to  fellowship  or  disfellowship  churches,  and  to  legislate  as 
to  the  common  afi^airs  of  the  denomination.  It  is  true  there 
is  the  old  hostility  to  any  claim  of  authority,  but  the  author- 
ity is  all  the  stronger  that  it  is  given  in  the  form  of  counsel  and 
fraternal  advice. 

The  American  Presbyterian  Church  has  departed  widely 
from  the  Westminster  model  in  the  constitution  of  the  pres- 
bytery, in  the  theory  of  the  ruling  eldership  and  in  methods 
of  government  and  discipline.  The  theory  that  the  ruling 
elders  represent  the  people  is  an  American  Presbyterian 
doctrine  that  has  been  adopted  from  the  representative 
theory  of  the  American  Republic.  The  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  is  very  different  from  the  Church  of  England  in  its 
government.  Its  two  houses,  its  conventions.  Diocesan 
and  General,  and  their  methods  of  government  are  more 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE  79 

like  those  of  the  American  Presbyterian  Church  than  those 
of  the  Church  of  England. 

We  are  thus  brought  to  this  interesting  situation,  that  the 
free  Churches  of  the  United  States  under  the  potent  influence 
of  the  civil  government — all  the  more  powerful  that  it  has 
been  indirect  and  insensible — ^have  assimilated  themselves 
so  far  to  the  civil  government  and  thereby  also  to  each  other, 
that  in  their  ecclesiastical  government  they  are  at  present  not 
far  apart,  and  that  any  one  of  the  three  types  is  nearer  to  the 
golden  mean  of  parties  in  the  seventeenth  century.  Why, 
then,  should  they  any  longer  remain  apart  ?  The  process  of 
assimilation  is  so  rapid,  and  the  constraint  of  external  neces- 
sity is  so  great  that  it  is  inevitable  that  they  will  somehow 
unite  in  the  twentieth  century,  in  spite  of  all  traditions  and 
of  every  opposition  of  dogmaticians  and  ecclesiastics.  When 
they  unite,  it  is  inevitable  that  the  unity  of  the  organism  will 
find  expression  in  the  executive  functions  of  the  Historic 
Episcopate. 

II.    THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE  AS  A  TERM  OF  UNION 

The  Historic  Episcopate  is  made  the  great  question  of  diffi- 
culty by  the  fourth  article  of  the  proposition  of  the  American 
House  of  Bishops  and  the  Lambeth  Conference.  But  it  is 
really  a  no  more  difficult  question  than  the  Historical  Pres- 
hyter.  Before  the  reunion  is  accomplished  each  one  of  these 
offices  must  pass  through  the  fire.  I  am  not  sure  that  it 
makes  any  very  great  difference  where  we  begin.  Possibly 
it  may  be  as  well  that  the  Episcopal  Churches  should  settle 
the  question  of  the  Historical  Episcopate  and  that  the  Pres- 
byterian Churches  should  determine  the  question  of  the 
Historical  Presbyter. 

But  it  is  just  here  that  one  of  the  most  interesting  features 
of  the  situation  meets  us.  The  Episcopal  Churches  are  no 
more  agreed  as  to  the  Historical  Episcopate  than  are  the  Pres- 
byterian Churches  as  to  the  Historical  Presbyterate.  The 
Greek  Church  will  not  agree  with  the  Roman;   neither  of 


% 


80  CHURCH  UNITY 

these  will  agree  with  the  Anglican.  Let  any  one  consider 
the  differences  in  the  Church  of  England  as  represented  by 
the  three  names,  Hatch,  Lightfoot  and  Gore.  In  view  of 
this  discord  as  to  the  Historical  Episcopate,  well  known  to 
the  House  df  Bishops  and  the  Lambeth  Conference,  it  seems 
quite  evident  that  these  bishops,  differing  among  themselves 
in  their  theory  of  the  Episcopate,  could  not  lay  down  a  basis 
for  the  reunion  of  Christendom  that  would  involve  any  par- 
ticular theory  of  the  Episcopate.  They  could  only  mean 
that  which  was  essential  to  the  Historical  Episcopate,  that 
to  which  divines  like  Hatch,  Lightfoot  and  Gore  could  agree. 

Many  Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists  have  the  feel- 
ing that  it  is  the  Anglo-Catholic  theory  of  the  Episcopate 
that  the  House  of  Bishops  and  the  Lambeth  Conference  are 
proposing.  This  is  favoured  by  the  industry  and  boldness 
with  which  the  Anglo-Catholic  party  are  pressing  their  theory. 
But  it  seems  incredible  that  the  House  of  Bishops  would  pro- 
_£Ose  a  theory  to  which  it  would  be  difficult  to  rally  a  majority 
of  the  members  of  the  Church  of  England. 

It  was  well  known  to  them  that  Presbyterians,  Methodists, 
Congregationalists  and  Lutherans  could  not  accept  the  Anglo- 
Catholic  theory.  But  there  are  multitudes  of  ministers  in 
all  the  non-Episcopal  Churches  who  are  willing  to  accept 
the  theory  of  the  Episcopate  of  the  late  Dr.  Hatch,  and  there 
are  many  who  could  adopt  the  theory  of  the  late  Bishop 
Lightfoot. 

The  progress  of  the  discussion  as  to  the  Historical  Episco- 
pate teaches  two  lessons:  (1)  The  Anglo-Catholics  who  really 
desire  the  reunion  of  Christendom  should  beware  lest  they 
make  their  theory  of  the  Episcopate  essential.  They  are  en- 
titled to  argue  for  it  to  the  extent  of  their  ability;  but  they 
should  understand  that  if  they  make  their  theory  essential 
there  is  no  possibility  of  reunion.  They  must  first  conquer 
other  parties  in  the  Episcopal  Churches  before  they  can  have 
any  prospect  of  overcoming  the  hosts  in  the  non-Episcopal 
Churches,  which,  so  far  as  my  observation  goes,  are  unani- 
mous against  them.     (2)  On  the  other  hand,  those  who  hold 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE  81 

that  the  Historical  Episcopate  is  jure  humano  and  not  jure 
divinOy  that  it  has  historic  right,  but  no  Biblical  basis,  should 
not  make  their  views  essential.  The  Anglo-Catholic  theory 
has  been  in  the  Church  of  England  from  the  beginning,  and 
it  would  be  a  historical  wrong  to  exclude  it.  I  think  that 
theory  can  be  shown  to  be  erroneous.  Recent  historical 
research  is  very  damaging  to  all  jure  divino  theories  of  Church 
government,  but  it  is  a  tolerable  error,  and  it  should  be  recog- 
nised by  all  as  a  legitimate  and  a  lawful  theory  of  the  Episco- 
pate. These  theories  ought  to  coexist,  and  be  mutually 
tolerant  and  forbearing.  The  question  is  to  be  determined 
by  historic  research,  and  not  by  dogmatic  statements  or 
ecclesiastical  decisions. 

The  view  that  I  have  taken  of  the  meaning  of  the  Historical 
Episcopate  as  proposed  by  the  House  of  Bishops  and  the 
Lambeth  Conference  as  the  fourth  term  of  union  is  confirmed 
by  one  who  seems  to  speak  with  authority.  Dr.  Vincent, 
the  Bishop  of  Southern  Ohio,  tells  us  plainly: 

Nothing  is  said  here  of  Episcopacy  as  of  Divine  institution  or  neces- 
sity, nothing  of  "Apostolic  succession,"  nothing  of  a  Scriptural  origin  or 
a  doctrinal  nature  in  the  institution.  It  is  expressly  proposed  here  only 
in  its  "historical  character"  and  as  "locally  adapted  to  the  varying 
needs  of  God's  people."  All  else,  unless  it  be  its  Scripturalness,  is 
matter  of  opinion,  to  which  this  Church  has  never  formally  committed 
herself.  Her  position  here  is  the  same  broad  and  generous  one  taken 
in  the  preface  to  her  ordinal.  That  phrase,  "the  Historic  Episcopate," 
was  deliberately  chosen  as  declaring  not  a  doctrine  but  a  fact,  and  as 
being  general  enough  to  include  all  variants. — (An  address  on  Christian 
Unity,  p.  29.  Published  by  the  Cincinnati  branch  of  the  Church  Unity 
Society.) 

This  platform  thus  interpreted,  is  broad  enough  and  strong 
enough  for  the  feet  of  Presbyterians,  and  it  contains  nothing 
to  which  they  can  rightly  object. 

The  non-Episcopal  Churches  are  willing  to  consider  the 
Historical  Episcopate  as  jure  humano^  as  not  essential  to  the 
existence  of  the  Church,  but  as  important  for  its  well-being. 
Not  a  few  Presbyterians  agree  that  the  Presbyterian  form  of 
government,  as  now  used  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  is 


82  CHURCH  UNITY 

defective.  It  is  impossible  for  a  whole  Presbytery  to  exer- 
cise Episcopal  functions  in  any  practical  way.  A  committee 
of  Presbytery  is  more  efficient;  but  it  has  been  the  experience 
of  committees  that  really  the  best  committee  is  often  a  com- 
mittee of  ojie,  and  practically  in  all  committees  the  chairman 
or  secretary  does  the  major  part  of  the  work.  The  Presby- 
tery needs  an  executive  head  who  shall  be  relieved  from  the 
cares  of  a  local  church  and  be  consecrated  to  the  superin- 
tendency  of  the  whole  Church  in  the  limits  of  the  Presby- 
tery. Many  Presbyterians  feel  the  ineflSciency  of  the  Pres- 
bytery very  keenly,  and  are  prepared  to  advance  to  the 
permanent  moderator  or  superintendent.  The  tendency  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church  is  toward  such  a  bishop,  who  will 
give  the  Presbytery  an  executive  head  and  make  it  more 
eflScient.  The  Episcopate  has  in  its  favour  the  historical 
usage  of  the  Christian  Church  from  the  second  century  un- 
til the  sixteenth.  The  Episcopate  has  in  its  favour  also  its 
continuance  in  several  national  Reformed  Churches,  show- 
ing that  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  Reformation.  His- 
tory is  a  powerful  argument  for  the  Episcopate.  This, 
added  to  the  practical  argument,  makes  the  future  of  the 
Episcopate  sure  unless  the  old  blunders  should  be  renewed 
and  perpetuated. 

III.    GROUNDS  OF  OPPOSITION  TO  EPISCOPACY 

There  are  four  reasons  for  opposition  in  the  non-Episcopal 
Churches  to  the  Historic  Episcopate: — 

1.  The  claim  that  the  Diocesan  Episcopacy  has  the  Divine 
right  of  institution  by  Christ  and  his  apostles. 

2.  The  claim  that  the  Diocesan  bishops  are  the  successors 
of  the  apostles. 

3.  The  claim  that  ordination  by  Diocesan  bishops  has 
in  it  special  grace  without  which  there  can  be  no  valid  min- 
istry. 

4.  The  claim  that  the  Diocesan  bishops  have  Divine  author- 
ity to  rule  the  Church. 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE  83 

These  claims  for  the  Diocesan  Episcopate  have  been 
associated  in  the  minds  of  the  non-Episcopal  ministry  with 
all  the  tyranny  and  abuses  that  the  Church  has  suffered  at 
the  hands  of  the  Diocesan  bishops.  These  claims  are  not 
recognised  by  the  ministry  of  other  Protestant  Churches, 
and  it  is  not  at  all  likely  that  they  ever  will  be  recognised 
in  the  terms  in  which  they  have  usually  been  presented. 
Unless  the  Historic  Episcopacy  can  be  eliminated  from  them, 
or  these  claims  can  be  explained  in  accordance  with  the  New 
Testament  and  primitive  Christian  history,  the  reunion  of 
Christendom  is  improbable. 

1.  There  is  agreement  among  recent  historical  critics  of 
all  parties  that  there  is  no  record  of  the  institution  of  the 
Diocesan  bishop  in  the  New  Testament.  The  only  bishops 
of  the  New  Testament  are  presbyter-bishops,  and  these  are 
ever  associated  in  a  college  or  presbytery.  Nowhere  do  we 
find  a  church  under  the  guidance  of  one  of  these  presbyter- 
bishops.  Nowhere  do  we  find  more  than  one  church  in 
one  city.  Hatch,  Lightfoot,  Gore,  Sanday,  Harnack  and 
Schaff  are  agreed  as  to  this  point.  Hence  the  battle-cries 
of  all  the  parties  in  the  seventeenth  century  have  happily 
disappeared  in  this  new  concord  of  Historical  Criticism. 
There  is  no  ecclesiastical  organisation  now  in  existence  that 
corresponds  with  the  organisation  of  the  Church  in  the  New 
Testament.  Where  do  we  find  the  independent  church 
with  a  single  pastor  and  a  bench  of  deacons  of  modern  Con- 
gregationalism ?  Where  do  we  find  the  ruling  elders  with 
a  presiding  parochial  bishop  of  modern  Presbyterianism  ? 
Where  do  we  find  the  diocesan  bishop  with  his  subordinate 
priests  and  deacons  of  the  Episcopal  Churches?  None  of 
these  are  in  the  New  Testament.  All  jure  divino  theories  of 
Church  government  that  base  their  orders  on  the  authority 
of  the  New  Testament  are,  if  not  yet  buried,  inanimate 
corpses,  slain  by  Historical  Criticism.  Jure  divino  Congre- 
gationalism and  Presbyterianism  have  but  few  advocates  at 
the  present  time.  It  is  probable  that  it  is  the  failure  of  the 
jure  divino  theory  of  the  diocesan  episcopate  that  has  a  great 


84  CHURCH   UNITY 

deal  to  do  with  the  advance  of  the  Church  of  England  and 
her  daughters  toward  Church  Unity. 

Morin,  the  great  Roman  Catholic  authority  on  ordina- 
tions, says  that  there  are  three  theories  as  to  the  relation  of 
bishops  to  presbyters.  The  first  is  that  the  bishops  do  not 
differ  from  presbyters.  This  was  the  view  of  Aerius  which 
was  rejected  by  the  Church.  The  second  theory  is  that  the 
bishops  are  superior  to  presbyters  by  human  right,  the  third 
that  they  are  superior  by  divine  right.  The  latter  is  the 
prevailing  theory  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  but  not  so 
as  to  regard  the  second  theory  as  heretical.  The  two  theories 
have  been  maintained  in  the  Church  from  primitive  times.* 

2.  The  claim  that  bishops  are  the  successors  of  the  apos- 
tles is  no  longer  defended  on  the  ground  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, but  on  the  ground  of  the  history  of  the  second  Christian 
century.  Early  in  the  second  century  bishops  appear  at  the 
head  of  colleges  of  presbyters  in  the  leading  churches  of 
Asia;  but  it  is  admitted  that  these  do  not  appear  so  early 
in  the  churches  of  Europe  and  Africa,  where  the  churches 
were  governed  by  colleges  of  presbyter-bishops.  It  is  ad- 
mitted that  these  bishops  of  the  cities  of  Asia  are  not  yet 
full  diocesan  bishops;  they  are  parochial  bishops,  bishops 
of  cities  and  towns  where  but  one  church  existed  so  far  as 
can  be  determined.  These  parochial  bishops  are  more 
like  the  pastors  of  Presbyterian  and  Congregational  churches 
than  diocesan  bishops,  save  that  they  are  at  the  head  of  col- 
leges of  presbyter-bishops,  to  which  modern  Congregation- 
alism has  nothing  to  correspond  save  ruling  deacons  and 
for  which  Presbyterianism  has  no  sufficient  substitute  in  rul- 
ing elders.  Such  deacons  and  such  elders  have  no  counter- 
part in  the  second  Christian  century;  and  the  breaking  up  of 
the  Church  of  Christ  into  a  number  of  different  organisations 
in  the  same  city,  even  if  it  be  in  the  same  general  ecclesiasti- 
cal organisation,  was  not  dreamed  of  in  the  second  century. 

It  is  a  plausible  theory  that  the  parochial  bishops  of  Asia 

*  Commentarius  de  Sacris  EcclesicB  Ordinationibus,  1655,  Para.  III. 
Exercit.  III.    Cap.  3. 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE  85 

were  ordained  and  installed,  either  by  the  hands  of  the  apos- 
tles, or  by  those  prophets,  teachers  and  evangelists  who  had 
divine  inspiration,  and  who  appear  in  the  New  Testament 
as  the  assistants  and  deputies  of  the  apostles  in  the  organisa- 
tion of  the  Church.     Thus  Lightfoot  says: 

"  Though  the  New  Testament  itself  contains  as  yet  no  direct  and  indis- 
putable notices  of  a  localised  Episcopate  in  the  Gentile  churches,  as 
distinguished  from  the  movable  Episcopate  exercised  by  Timothy  in 
Ephesus  and  by  Titus  in  Crete,  yet  there  is  satisfactory  evidence  of  its 
development  in  the  later  years  of  the  Apostolic  age;  that  this  develop- 
ment was  not  simultaneous  and  equal  in  all  parts  of  Christendom; 
that  it  is  more  especially  connected  with  the  name  of  St.  John;  and  that 
in  the  early  years  of  the  second  century  the  Episcopate  was  widely 
spread  and  had  taken  firm  root,  more  especially  in  Asia  Minor  and  in 
Syria."     {Episties  of  St  Ignatius,  i.,  p.  376.) 

It  is  also  a  legitimate  theory  that  these  parochial  bishops 
were  the  historical  successors  of  those  assistants  and  deputies 
of  the  apostles,  who  were  at  first  travelling  apostles  and 
evangelists,  but  who  gradually  became  settled  and  permanent 
parochial  bishops  of  the  larger  and  more  central  Churches. 
As  Gore  says: 

"  We  have  no  determining  evidence  (in  the  New  Testament)  as  to  the 
exact  form  which  the  ministry  of  the  future  was  to  take.  .  .  .  Were  the 
local  bishops  to  receive  additional  powers,  such  as  would  make  them 
independent  of  any  higher  order  ?  Or  were  the  Apostles  and  Apostolic 
men,  like  Timothy  and  Titus,  to  perpetuate  their  distinct  order  ?  And 
if  so,  was  it  to  be  perpetuated  as  a  localised  or  as  a  general  order? 
These  questions  are  still  open."  ...  "In  the  West  no  more  than  in  the 
East  did  the  supreme  power  ever  devolve  upon  the  presbyters.  There 
was  a  time  when  they  were  (as  the  epistles  of  Clement  and  Polycarp 
bear  witness)  the  chief  local  authorities — the  sole  ordinary  occupants 
of  the  chief  seat.  But  over  them,  not  yet  localised,  were  men  either  of 
prophetic  inspiration  or  of  Apostolic  authority  and  known  character — 
'prophets'  or  'teachers'  or  'rulers*  or  'men  of  distinction' — who  in  the 
sub-Apostolic  age  ordained  to  the  sacred  ministry,  and  in  certain  cases 
would  have  exercised  the  chief  teaching  and  governing  authority.  Grad- 
ually these  men,  after  the  pattern  set  by  James  in  Jerusalem  or  by  John 
in  the  churches  of  Asia,  become  themselves  local  presidents  or  instituted 
others  in  their  place."  {Ministry  of  the  Christian  Church,  pp.  269,  270, 
335.) 


86  CHURCH  UNITY 

But  giving  all  the  importance  to  these  theories  to  which  they 
may  be  entitled,  by  pushing  the  evidence  to  the  utmost  ex- 
treme, we  do  not  get  any  more  than  probable  historical  evi- 
dence for  the  parochial  bishops  as  historical  successors  of 
the  apostles.  We  are  not  on  the  ground  of  the  divine  right 
of  the  New  Testament.  We  have  nothing  more  than  very 
ancient  historic  right  for  the  historical  Episcopate.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  theory  that  the  parochial  bishop  was  a  natural 
evolution  of  the  college  of  presbyter-bishops;  that  it  was 
inevitable  that  the  college  should  have  an  executive  head; 
and  that  with  the  growth  of  the  Church,  this  presiding 
presbyter-bishop,  who  at  first  was  temporary  and  changeable, 
or  in  the  order  of  seniority,  would  become  a  permanent  paro- 
chial bishop,  having  the  administration  of  the  affairs  of  the 
church  of  the  city  committed  to  his  hands,  without  any  order- 
ing of  the  apostles  and  without  any  divine  institution — this 
theory  accounts  for  all  the  facts  of  history  as  they  appear  in 
the  ancient  documents. 

We  do  not  underrate  the  historical  argument  even  when  it 
comes  so  close  to  the  apostles  themselves  and  the  prophets 
who  were  associated  with  them.  But  we  claim  that  it  is 
necessary  to  carefully  distinguish  it  from  the  divine  right  of 
the  New  Testament.  In  the  consideration  of  this  difference 
I  have  been  greatly  impressed  by  the  inconsistency  with  which 
many  modem  Presbyterians  have  become  involved.  The 
old  Presbyterians  were  entirely  consistent  when  they  de- 
manded a  divine  right  from  the  New  Testament  itself  for  the 
ministry  and  the  canon  of  Scripture.  But  modern  Presby- 
terians who  have  so  generally  abandoned  the  argument 
from  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  for  the  canonicity  of 
Scripture,  and  rest  the  authority  of  the  Canon  of  Scripture 
upon  the  historical  evidence  connecting  it  with  Apostolic 
penmen,  can  no  longer  with  consistency  insist  upon  a  jure 
diviiio  for  Episcopacy  in  the  New  Testament  and  refuse  the 
candid  and  firm  historical  argument  of  Bishop  Lightfoot. 

The  modern  Church  cannot  safely  commit  itself  to  any  of 
these  theories,  for  it  is  within  the  range  of  possibility  that 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE  87 

ere  long  other  early  Christian  documents  may  be  discovered, 
of  more  importance  than  the  Teaching  of  the  Apostles,  that 
will  put  the  whole  question  in  a  new  light.  There  can  be  no 
agreement  except  that  the  parochial  bishop  at  the  head  of  a 
presbytery  of  presbyter-bishops  was  a  historic  fact  of  the 
first  half  of  the  second  Christian  century,  and  that  it  became 
universal  at  the  close  of  the  century.  Whether  it  rests  upon 
apostolic  authority,  or  the  authority  of  the  presbyter-bishops 
into  whose  hands  the  government  of  the  Church  was  entrusted 
by  the  apostles,  it  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  determine.  The 
New  Testament  gives  us  no  jure  divino  on  the  subject.  If  it 
were  an  essential  question,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  there 
would  have  been  a  jure  divino  determination  of  it.  The 
Churches  may  agree  upon  the  historic  fact;  they  do  not  agree 
upon  the  divine  institution. 

The  twelve  apostles  had  a  unique  office,  to  bear  witness 
to  what  they  had  seen  of  the  historic  Christ,  his  life,  his  teach- 
ings, his  death  on  the  cross,  his  resurrection,  his  ascension, 
the  Christophanies  of  the  enthroned  Saviour.  No  successors 
could  fulfil  this  office.  The  other  parts  of  their  office,  teach- 
ing, governing,  administration  of  the  sacraments,  they  trans- 
mitted to  others.  In  the  New  Testament  the  presbyter- 
bishops  are  seen  doing  all  these  things.  They  could  transmit 
these  things  to  their  successors  without  any  need  of  a  higher 
order,  superintending  them  and  governing  them.  It  seems 
to  most  historical  critics  that  this  very  thing  they  did.  If 
others  find  comfort  in  a  theory  that  the  apostles  or  apostolic 
men  of  a  higher  order  than  presbyters  had  a  hand  in  insti- 
tuting the  parochial  bishops,  no  objection  should  be  taken 
to  the  theory,  if  held  as  a  theory,  and  not  urged  as  essential 
to  the  existence  of  the  Church.  But  the  early  second  cen- 
tury gives  us  only  the  parochial  bishop.  The  diocesan 
bishop  and  the  village  bishop  were  later  developments. 
Certainly  these  had  no  institution  from  the  hands  of  the 
apostles  or  apostolic  men.  We  may  accept  the  diocesan 
bishop  as  a  historic  evolution  in  the  growth  of  the  Church 
under  the  guidance  of  the  Divine  Spirit;  but  we  cannot  ac- 


88  CHURCH  UNITY 

cept  the  diocesan  bishop  as  linked  by  apostolic  succession 
as  a  distinct  order  to  the  ordaining  hands  of  the  apostles. 
The  ordination  of  presbyter-bishops  may  be  linked  to  apos- 
tolic hands  by  the  testimony  of  the  New  Testament.  The  ordi- 
nation of  the  parochial  bishop  may  be  linked  to  apostolic 
hands  by  a  plausible  interpretation  of  historical  facts.  But  the 
diocesan  bishop  is  an  evolution  out  of  the  parochial  bishop, 
and  the  only  apostolic  succession  he  has  is  through  the  paro- 
chial bishop,  or  possibly  only  through  the  presbyter-bishops. 
3.  The  claim  that  ordination  by  diocesan  bishops  has 
special  grace,  without  which  there  is  no  valid  ministry,  is  the 
most  objectionable  of  all  the  claims  that  are  put  forth  on  be- 
half of  the  Historic  Episcopate  at  the  present  time.  There 
is  no  evidence  for  this  in  the  New  Testament,  or  in  the  second 
Christian  century.  The  New  Testament  tells  us  of  ordina- 
tion by  a  presbytery  of  presbyter-bishops,  but  gives  us  no  ex- 
ample of  ordination  by  a  parochial  bishop,  still  less  of  ordi- 
nation by  a  diocesan  bishop.  The  Presbyterian  Churches 
claim  that  their  ordination  by  presbyter-bishops  is  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  example  of  the  New  Testament,  and  that 
the  apostolic  succession  has  been  regularly  transmitted 
through  the  centuries  in  the  laying  on  of  hands  of  these  pres- 
byter-bishops. At  the  Reformation  some  of  the  National 
Churches  of  northern  Europe  laid  aside  the  diocesan  bishops, 
and  by  the  highest  authority  in  those  Churches  gave  the  en- 
tire authority  of  the  ministry  to  the  presbyter-bishops,  meet- 
ing in  Presbytery.  Presbyterian  ministers  have  been  or- 
dained by  the  laying  on  of  hands  of  presbyter-bishops,  in 
regular  succession  from  presbyter-bishops  ordained  by  dioc- 
esan bishops  at  the  head  of  bodies  of  presbyter-bishops. 
Grore  admits: 

"that  the  Church  principle  of  succession  would  never  be  violated  by  the 
existence  in  any  Church  of  episcopal  powers,  whether  free  or  conditional, 
in  all  the  presbyters,  supposing  that  those  powers  were  not  assumed  by 
the  individual  for  himself,  but  were  understood  to  be  conveyed  to  him 
by  the  ordination  of  the  Church."  {Ministry  of  the  Christian  Church, 
1889,  p.  143.) 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE  89 

Now  this  is  precisely  the  case  with  the  Reformed  National 
Churches  of  Europe.  The  Churches  of  Switzerland,  Ger- 
many and  Scotland  were  reformed  in  doctrine  and  disci- 
pline by  the  same  authority  as  the  Church  of  England ;  namely, 
the  authority  lodged  in  the  National  Church  itself.  It 
is  quite  evident  that  the  National  Church  was  less  free  to 
reform  itself  and  more  hindered  in  its  development  in  Eng- 
land than  in  any  other  Protestant  country.  The  diocesan 
bishops  were  deposed  for  tyranny,  immorality  and  heresy 
in  many  of  the  Reformed  Churches  in  an  orderly  way.  In 
those  countries  where  diocesan  bishops  led  or  followed  the 
National  Churches  in  their  reform,  they  were  retained. 
But  where  they  were  deposed,  and  discontinued  in  the  inter- 
ests of  the  good  order  and  discipline  of  the  Church,  the  whole 
authority  of  the  Church  was  given  over  into  the  hands  of 
the  presbyter-bishops.  Did  these  National  Churches  die 
with  their  deposed  diocesan  bishops?  Was  there  no  inher- 
ent authority  in  the  Church  to  govern  itself  when  its  historic 
bishops  had  left  it  in  the  lurch  ?  Even  granting  that,  in  the 
interests  of  good  order,  ordination  by  a  diocesan  bishop  at 
the  head  of  a  Presbytery  is  important  to  a  valid  ministry, 
yet  the  disorders  of  the  Reformation,  and  the  separation  of 
the  bishops  from  the  Churches  of  the  Reformation,  left  the 
National  Churches  in  such  an  abnormal  condition  that  the 
only  ordained  ministry  left  to  them  were  obliged  to  exercise 
all  the  functions  of  the  ministry.  Their  acts,  even  if  irregular 
and  disorderly,  were  therefore  valid,  because  they  were  not 
the  usurped  authority  of  individuals;  they  were  the  authority 
of  organised  National  Churches,  in  accordance  with  national 
law  and  order.     Gore  says: 

"  It  cannot  be  maintained  that  the  acts  of  ordination  by  which  presby- 
ters of  the  sixteenth  or  subsequent  centuries  originated  the  ministries  of 
some  of  these  societies,  were  covered  by  their  commissions  or  belonged 
to  the  oflBce  of  presbyter,  which  they  had  received."  {Ministry  of  the 
Christian  Church,  1889,  p.  344.) 

But  this  is  precisely  what  has  been  maintained  in  the  Lutheran 


90  CHURCH  UNITY 

and  Reformed  Churches  from  the  beginning.     The  West- 
minster Directory  teaches: 

(1)  No  man  ought  to  take  upon  him  the  oflSce  of  a  minister  of  the 
Word  without  a  lawful  calling  [John  iii.  27;  Rom.  x.  14,  15;  Jer.  xiv. 
14;  Heb.  ix.  4];  (2)  Ordination  is  always  to  be  continued  in  the  Church 
[Job  i.  5;  I  Tim.  v.  21,  22];  (3)  Ordination  is  the  solemn  setting  apart 
of  a  person  to  some  publique  Church  oflBce  [Num.  viii.  10,  11,  14,  19, 
22;  Acts  vi.  3,  5,  6];  (4)  Every  minister  of  the  Word  is  to  be  ordained 
by  imposition  of  hands,  and  prayer  with  fasting,  by  those  preaching 
presbyters  to  whom  it  doth  belong  [I  Tim.  v.  22;  Acts  xiv.  23;  xiii.  3]; 
(5)  The  power  of  ordering  the  whole  work  of  ordination  is  in  the 
whole  Presbytery  [I  Tim.  iv.  14]. 

It  is  not  presbyters  gathered  in  societies  who  ordain,  but 
presbyters  organized  in  a  Presbytery  for  the  government  and 
discipline  of  the  Church.  These  presbyters  claim  apostolic 
succession  through  the  laying  on  of  hands  of  presbyters  in 
successive  generations,  leading  back  to  the  apostles  in  the 
New  Testament  times.  These  Presbyteries  claim  succession 
to  the  Presbyteries  that  have  governed  the  Church  in  all 
ages  under  various  names.  Church  authority  was  not  de- 
stroyed when  the  presiding  bishops  were  lawfully  deposed 
and  the  office  of  diocesan  bishop  was  for  good  reasons  dis- 
continued. The  whole  authority  of  ordination  fell  to  the 
whole  Presbytery  or  whole  body  of  Presbyters  organised  as 
National  Churches. 

Gore  also  says,  "Beyond  all  question  they  'took  to  them- 
selves' these  powers  of  ordination,  and  consequently  had 
them  not."*  But  Presbyterians  claim,  on  the  contrary, 
that  they  did  have  these  powers  of  ordination  by  right  of 
succession  and  that  they  did  not  take  them  to  themselves, 
and  that  they  consequently  had  them.  They  not  only  had 
them  by  transmission  in  ordination  by  presbyters  and  diocesan 
bishops,  but  they  had  them  by  becoming,  through  the  deposi- 
tion of  the  diocesan  bishops,  and  the  commission  into  their 
hands  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  National  Church,  and 

» Ministry  of  the  Christian  Church,  1889,  p.  346. 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE  91 

by  the  consent  of  the  National  Parliament,  the  seat  of  the 
whole  authority  in  the  National  Church.  There  was  no 
more  a  taking  to  themselves  powers  of  ordination  by  Scotch, 
Swiss,  French,  Dutch  and  German  presbyters  in  these 
National  Churches  of  Northern  Europe  than  there  was  in 
the  case  of  the  Protestant  bishops  of  the  Church  of  England 
who  were  deposed  by  the  Roman  Church,  and  whose  au- 
thority to  ordain  has  never  since  been  recognised  by  the 
Roman  Church.  Did  the  deposed  diocesan  bishops  retain 
in  their  hands  the  sole  authority  to  ordain  in  the  National 
Church,  and  were  the  whole  body  of  presbyters  and  the  people 
and  Parliament  doing  unlawful  acts  in  vindicating  the  purity 
of  the  Church,  its  orthodoxy,  and  the  divine  rights  of  Jesus 
Christ?  God  forbid!  The  accident  or  good  providence 
that  enabled  the  Church  of  England  to  advance  into  the 
Reformation  with  her  bishops  at  her  head,  does  not  entitle 
that  Church  to  lord  it  over  other  National  Churches,  or  to 
claim  the  only  valid  ministry  in  Protestantism.  The  Lutheran 
and  Reformed  Churches  of  the  continent  of  Europe  and  the 
Presbyterian  and  Congregational  Churches  of  Great  Britain 
and  America  challenge  comparison  with  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land and  her  daughters  in  this  respect. 

The  ministry  of  Churches  that  honour  the  names  of 
Luther  and  Melancthon,  Zwingli  and  Calvin,  Bucer  and 
Peter  Martyr,  Knox  and  Alasco,  and  a  host  more  of  the 
greatest  men  of  modern  times,  will  never  dishonour  the 
memory  of  these  heroes  of  the  Faith  by  denying  the  validity 
of  their  ministry.  The  reunion  of  Christendom  at  such  a  cost 
would  be  a  dishonourable  transaction.  Presbyterians  and 
Congregationalists  will  continue  to  honour  the  memories  of 
Cartwright  and  Travers  in  their  contest  with  Whitgift  and 
Hooker;  of  Marshall,  Palmer  and  Baxter  in  their  contest 
with  Laud,  Hall  and  Taylor;  of  Robinson  and  his  band  of 
Separatists  who  founded  the  Plymouth  Colony;  of  the  patri- 
arch White  of  Dorchester  and  his  associates,  who  founded 
the  Massachusetts  Bay  Colony;  of  Melville,  Welch,  Living- 
ston and  Rutherford,  and  a  host  of  brave  Presbyterians 


92  CHURCH  UNITY 

and  Congregationalists,  who  battled  against  civil  and  ec- 
clesiastical tyranny  of  bishops  and  king.  Such  names  as 
Cartwright,  Melville,  Baxter  and  Bunyan  shine  among  the 
heroes  of  the  Faith.  Such  bishops  as  Whitgift  and  Laud  no 
modern  Church  would  tolerate  for  a  moment.  The  English 
people  of  our  day  would  hurl  such  bishops  from  their  thrones 
with  thunderbolts  of  wrath. 

The  opinion  of  Gore  with  reference  to  the  orders  of  the 
Reformed  and  Lutheran  Churches  of  the  continent  of  Eu- 
rope, is  the  evil  tradition  that  has  come  down  in  the  Anglican 
Church  from  the  Laudian  party  at  the  Restoration  of  Charles 
IL  It  is  entirely  contrary  to  the  best  Anglican  authorities 
prior  to  the  civil  wars  o  the  reign  of  Charles  I  and  II,  as 
represented  by  Hooker,  Field,  Mason,  Joseph  Hall  and 
many  others,  who  all  regarded  the  orders  of  the  Reformed 
Churches  of  the  Continent  as  valid. 

4.  The  claim  that  bishops  have  Divine  authority  to  rule  the 
Church  was  pressed  in  former  times.  But  unless  we  mistake, 
it  has  been  for  the  most  part  abandoned  in  Great  Britain 
and  America.  The  fight  against  Episcopal  usurpation  and 
tyranny  has  been  fought  to  the  end;  and  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land and  her  daughters  are  now  among  the  freest  and  most 
tolerant  Churches  in  Christendom.  There  is  much  more  of 
tyranny  in  modern  Presbyterianism,  and  even  in  modern 
Congregationalism,  than  there  is  in  the  Historic  Episcopate, 
as  it  is  now  known  in  Great  Britain  and  America. 

None  of  these  four  claims  that  have  been  associated  with 
Historic  Episcopacy  would  be  recognised  by  the  ministry 
of  the  non-Episcopal  Churches.  Many  are  willing  that  all 
who  desire  to  make  these  claims  should  do  so  for  their  own 
comfort  and  edification,  in  so  far  as  they  do  not  force  them 
upon  others,  or  endeavour  to  make  them  the  law  of  the  Church 
of  Christ.  They  do  not  follow  the  ancient  Puritans  in  reject- 
ing them  as  anti-Christian  errors.  They  do  not  agree  with 
the  old  Presbyterians  in  casting  out  jure  divino  Episcopacy 
in  order  to  set  up  jure  divino  Presbytery.     Cartwright  and 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE  93 

Travers  were  as  much  in  error  on  the  one  side  as  Laud  and 
his  followers  on  the  other. 

We  have  to  consider  under  the  Historical  Episcopate  that 
which  is  essential  to  it  as  a  bond  of  union,  and  not  those  unes- 
sential theories  and  claims  that  have  been  put  forth  by  cev 
tain  parties  in  its  behalf.  These  are  but  the  outer  garments 
of  the  Historical  Episcopate,  that  may  be  exchanged  for 
other  robes.  These  are  the  features  that  may  be  pleasant 
for  some  parties  to  look  upon,  and  we  shall  not  deny  them 
their  pleasure  in  them.  But  when  the  proposition  of  the 
House  of  Bishops  is  adopted,  "the  Historic  Episcopate, 
locally  adapted  in  the  methods  of  its  administration  to  the 
varying  needs  of  the  nations  and  peoples  called  of  God  into 
the  unity  of  his  Church,"  then,  if  we  mistake  not,  all  these 
unessential  things  will  be  referred  to  the  special  charge  of  a 
party  in  the  Church  to  nurse  them  and  care  for  their  future, 
while  all  other  parties  will  agree  with  that  party  in  rallying 
round  the  Historical  Episcopate  in  its  essential  features  as 
seen  in  all  lands  and  in  all  times,  taking  form  in  the  several 
dioceses  as  the  conditions  and  circumstances  may  require. 

IV.    THE  ADVANTAGE  OF  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE 

Where,  then,  is  the  advantage  of  the  Historic  Episcopate  ? 
Where  is  the  substance  in  which  all  Episcopal  Churches  and 
parties  are  agreed,  and  to  which  it  is  probable  non-Episcopal 
Churches  will  adhere,  in  order  to  the  reunion  of  Christendom  ? 

1.  The  Historic  Episcopate  was  a  Historical  Evolution  in 
Church  Government.  Although  there  were  no  other  bishops 
in  New  Testament  times  than  presbyters,  yet  it  was  a  legiti- 
mate and  inevitable  result  of  a  bench  or  body  of  presbyters 
that  one  should  have  the  management  of  affairs,  be  the  execu- 
tive head  and  preside  over  the  government  of  the  local 
Church.  The  presiding  bishop  therefore  sprang  up  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  first  century,  or  early  in  the  second  century.. 
At  first  this  bishop  was  a  parochial  bishop.  There  was  but 
one  church  organisation  in  the  city,  with  missions  in  the  sub- 


94  CHURCH  UNITY 

urban  villages.  The  unity  of  the  Church  maintained  itself 
with  its  increase  in  size,  so  that  in  the  latter  part  of  the  sec- 
ond century,  or  early  in  the  third  century,  the  parochial 
Presbytery  had  grown  into  a  diocesan  Presbytery,  and  the 
parochial  bishop  into  a  diocesan  bishop,  and  later  chor- 
episcopi,  or  pastors  of  village  churches,  came  into  the  field. 
The  system  continued  to  develop  in  history  until  the  arch- 
bishop and  patriarch  and  Pope,  one  after  the  other,  gave  ex- 
pression to  the  higher  unities  of  the  growing  Church  of  Christ. 
The  Historic  Episcopate  is  a  historical  evolution.  It  has  a 
vast  variety  of  form  in  history.  At  what  stage  in  the  develop- 
ment shall  we  take  it  as  a  basis  of  union?  The  Roman 
Church  presents  us  the  system  in  its  highest  form  in  the  Pope. 
The  Greek  and  Oriental  Churches  give  us  an  earlier  stage 
in  the  patriarch.  The  Church  of  England  presents  us  the 
still  earlier  stage  in  the  archbishop.  The  American  Episco- 
pal Church  does  not  rise  higher  than  the  diocesan  bishop. 
The  Presbyterian  Church  goes  farther  back  to  the  parochial 
bishop.  What  Church  is  there  that  goes  back  to  the  earlier 
form  of  government  as  it  appears  in  the  New  Testament, 
with  a  bench  of  parochial  presbyter-bishops  under  apostolic 
oversight?  Not  one.  They  all  have  made  the  mistake  of 
pleading  a  jure  divmo,  while  they  all  represent  a  later  stage 
of  jure  humano  development.  At  what  stage,  then,  shall 
we  take  our  stand  for  Church  Unity?  What  is  the  essence 
of  the  Historical  Episcopate  in  which  all  can  agree  ? 

It  was  the  tyranny  of  the  bishops,  and  their  close  alliance 
with  the  Crown,  that  forced  the  reforming  party  in  the  State 
as  well  as  in  the  Church  to  take  ground  against  them.  The 
King  was  the  supreme  bishop  of  the  Church  of  England, 
and  became  a  national  pope. 

There  was  nothing  in  the  principles  of  the  Reformation 
that  at  all  interfered  with  the  Episcopal  office.  There  was 
nothing  in  Puritanism  that  forced  the  abolition  of  the  Episco- 
pate. Some  of  the  ablest  archbishops  and  bishops  of  Eng- 
land and  Ireland  were  Puritans.  It  was  more  the  evolution 
of  civil  politics  and  the  political  complications  of  the  bishops 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE  95 

that  made  the  difficulty  in  Great  Britain.  Whitgift  and  Laud 
did  more  to  injure  the  Episcopate  in  Protestantism  than 
any  other  agency  whatever.  The  opposition  to  the  Epis- 
copate in  Presbyterian  circles  is  a  traditional  opposition  that 
goes  back  to  the  Laudian  usurpation  and  the  civil  and 
religious  wars  that  followed.  Presbyterians  are  under  his- 
torical bonds  to  accept  the  Episcopate  of  Abbot  and  Ussher. 
The  difficulty  is  not  to  be  solved  by  stopping  at  any  of  the 
stages  in  the  historical  evolution  of  the  Episcopate,  whether 
with  the  parochial  bishop,  the  diocesan  bishop,  the  archbishop, 
the  patriarch  or  the  Pope.  The  whole  process  is  a  natural  evo- 
lution of  the  Historical  Episcopate.     As  I  have  recently  said : 

Christendom  might  unite  with  an  ascending  series  of  superintending 
bishops  that  would  culminate  in  a  universal  bishop,  provided  the  pyra- 
mid would  be  willing  to  rest  firmly  on  its  base,  the  soHd  order  of  the 
presbyter-bishops  of  the  New  Testament  and  of  all  history,  and  all 
Churches.  But  the  pyramid  will  never  stand  on  its  apex,  nor  hang 
suspended  in  the  air  supported  by  any  of  its  upper  stages.  {W hither  f 
p.  238.) 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  solution  is  not  in  going  backward, 
but  forward.  History  speaks  very  strongly  for  the  Historical 
Episcopate.  My  historic  sense  not  only  gives  me  great  re- 
spect and  veneration  for  the  office,  but  also  leads  me  to  the 
opinion  that  the  Church,  guided  by  the  Divine  Spirit,  did  not 
err  in  its  Episcopal  government  through  ail  these  centuries. 
The  abandonment  of  the  Episcopate  was  not  a  natural  result 
of  the  Reformation.  It  was  not  a  part  of  the  Lutheran 
movement.  The  national  Lutheran  Church  of  Sweden  has 
retained  bishops  until  the  present  day.  Sweden  claims 
apostolical  succession  for  her  bishops.  The  Episcopal 
office  was  restored  to  Denmark,  but  the  first  bishops  were 
ordained  by  Bugenhagen.^  Bishops  continued  at  the  head 
of  the  Reformed  Churches  of  Prussia  and  Brandenburg  for 
a  long  time.  England  began  with  bishops.  Scotland  had 
superintending  bishops.     It  was  the  jealousy  that  princes 

^ Briefwechsel  Zwischen  H.  L.  Martensen  und  I.  A.  Dorner,  I.  s.  238. 


96  CHURCH  UNITY 

in  Germany  felt  of  the  Episcopal  prerogative  that  prevented 
the  Lutheran  Church  from  having  Diocesan  bishops.  How- 
ever, superintendents  were  appointed  to  exercise  all  the  func- 
tions of  the  Episcopate  in  the  larger  portion  of  Germany 
and  Austria. 

2.  The  Historical  Episcopate  is  the  Crown  of  Presbyterian 
Government.  It  was  so  historically;  it  is  so  practically. 
Therefore  Presbyterians  should  be  willing  to  accept  it  as 
such.  They  are  not  willing  to  accept  the  theory  of  the  three 
orders,  in  the  usual  sense  of  implying  a  third  degree  of 
ministerial  character;  but  many  are  willing  to  accept  the 
bishop  as  the  executive  head,  the  first  among  his  brethren, 
the  most  honoured,  the  most  efficient  of  them  all.  It  is  the 
theory  of  apostolic  orders  that  makes  the  difficulty  in  the 
Historical  Episcopacy.  They  can  agree  upon  orders,  as  differ- 
ences in  rank  jure  humano,  for  the  well-being  of  the  Church, 
so  far  as  these  higher  orders  are  higher  by  election  of  their 
brethren,  and  not  higher  by  descent  of  apostolical  succession. 
They  might  agree  to  bishop,  archbishop,  patriarch  and 
Pope,  if  these  were  all  chosen  by  the  Church  in  stage  upon 
stage  of  advancement  toward  the  executive  head  of  the  Church. 
But  they  would  not  agree  that  the  bishops  have  any  exclusive 
Divine  right  to  transmit  the  Episcopal  order.  They  might 
be  willing,  in  other  words,  to  agree  to  the  whole  system  of 
Episcopal  orders  even  up  to  a  Papal  head,  but  would  not 
be  willing  to  agree  to  theories  of  higher  orders,  which  are 
associated  with  prerogative,  pride,  ambition,  tyranny  and 
despotism.  They  might  be  willing  to  recognise  all  sorts  of 
theories  of  the  Episcopate  and  tolerate  all  kinds  of  human 
weakness  and  follies  in  bishops.  They  could  not  unite  on 
any  of  the  theories  of  the  Historical  Episcopate,  but  they 
might  unite  on  the  Historical  Episcopate  itself.  And  if  the 
Anglo-Catholics  desire  to  conserve  any  rites  and  ceremonies 
in  the  way  of  consecration  and  ordination  by  bishops,  they 
should  concede  to  others  the  Presbyterial  election,  Episco- 
pal responsibility  to  synods  or  conventions  in  which  presbyters 
shall  have  their  rights;    and  they  should  put  such  checks 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE  97 

upon  episcopal  authority  as  will  prevent  any  of  those  evils 
from  which  the  Church  suffered  so  much  in  the  past. 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  just  here  two  historical  facts: 
(1)  What  the  Presbyterians  offered  in  1661,  as  their  ulti- 
matum ;  and  (2)  What  is  the  actual  condition  of  the  Historical 
Episcopate  in  America,  when  compared  with  this  ultimatum. 

The  Presbyterial  ultimatum  of  1661  was  given  in  the  Pro- 
posals of  the  Presbyterian  ministers,  drawn  up  after  nearly 
three  weeks'  debate,  in  Sion  College,  in  which  Edmund  Cala- 
my,  Reynolds,  Newcommen  and  Baxter  had  the  chief  hand. 

That  although  upon  just  reasons  we  do  dissent  from  that  ecclesiastical 
hierarchy  or  prelacy  disclaimed  in  the  Covenant,  as  it  was  stated  and 
exercised  in  these  kingdoms,  yet  we  do  not,  nor  ever  did  renounce  the 
true  ancient  and  primitive  presidency  as  it  was  ballanced  and  managed 
by  a  due  commixture  of  presbyters  therewith,  as  a  fit  means  to  avoid 
corruptions,  partiality,  tyranny,  and  other  evils  which  may  be  incident 
to  the  administration  of  one  single  person,  which  kind  of  attempered 
presidency,  if  it  shall  be  your  Majesty's  grave  wisdom  and  gracious 
moderation,  be  in  such  manner  constituted  as  that  the  forementioned 
and  other  like  evils  may  be  certainly  prevented,  we  shall  humbly  sub- 
mit thereunto. 

And  in  order  to  a  happy  accommodation  in  this  weighty  business,  we 
desire  humbly  to  offer  unto  your  Majesty  some  of  the  particulars  which 
we  conceive  were  unwise  in  the  Episcopal  government,  as  it  was  prac- 
tised before  the  year  1640. 

1.  The  great  extent  of  the  Bishop's  Diocese,  which  was  much  too 
large  for  his  own  personal  inspection,  wherein  he  undertook  a  pastoral 
charge  over  the  souls  of  all  those  within  his  bishoprick,  which  must 
needs  be  granted  to  be  too  heavy  a  burthen  for  any  one  man's  shoulders, 
the  Pastoral  office  being  a  work  of  personal  ministration  and  trust,  and 
that  of  the  highest  concernment  to  the  souls  of  the  people,  for  which 
they  are  to  give  an  account  to  Christ. 

2.  That  by  reason  of  this  disability  to  discharge  their  duty  and  trust 
personally,  the  bishops  did  depute  the  administration  of  much  of  their 
trust,  even  in  matters  of  spiritual  cognizance,  to  commissaries,  chancel- 
lors, and  officials,  whereof  some  were  secular  persons,  and  could  not 
administer  that  power  which  originally  appertaineth  to  the  pastors  of 
the  Church. 

3.  That  those  bishops  who  affirm  the  Episcopal  office  to  be  a  dis- 
tinct order  by  Divine  right  from  that  of  the  Presbyter,  did  assume  the 
sole  power  of  ordination  and  jurisdiction  to  themselves. 


98  CHURCH  UNITY 

4.  That  some  of  the  bishops  exercised  an  arbitrary  power  as  by 
sending  forth  the  Books  of  Articles  in  their  Visitations,  and  therein 
unwarrantably  enquiring  into  several  things,  and  swearing  the  church- 
wardens to  present  accordingly.  So  also  by  many  innovations  and 
ceremonies  imposed  upon  ministers  and  people  not  required  by  law, 
and  by  suspending  ministers  at  their  pleasure. 

In  reforming  of  which  evils,  we  humbly  crave  leave  to  offer  unto  your 
Majesty, — 

1.  The  late  most  reverend  primate  of  Ireland  his  Reduction  of 
Episcopacy  unto  the  Form  of  Synodical  Government,  received  in  the 
ancient  Church,  as  a  ground  work  towards  an  accommodation  and 
fraternal  agreement  in  this  point  of  Ecclesiastical  government, — which 
we  rather  do,  not  only  in  regard  of  his  eminent  piety  and  singular 
Ability  as  in  all  other  parts  of  Learning  so  in  that  especially  of  the 
Antiquities  of  the  Church,  but  also  because  therein  expedients  are 
offered  for  heaUng  these  grievances. 

And  in  order  to  the  same  end,  we  further  humbly  desire  that  the 
suffragans  or  chorepiscopi,  mentioned  in  the  Primate's  Reduction,  may 
be  chosen  by  the  respective  synods,  and  by  that  Election  be  sufficiently 
authorised  to  discharge  their  Trust.  That  the  Associations  may  not  be 
so  large  as  to  make  the  Discipline  impossible,  or  to  take  off  the  minis- 
ters from  the  rest  of  their  necessary  imployments. 

That  no  oaths  nor  promises  of  obedience  to  the  Bishops,  nor  any 
unnecessary  subscriptions  or  engagements  be  made  necessary  to  ordina- 
tion, institution,  induction,  ministration,  communion,  or  immunities  of 
ministers,  they  being  responsible  for  any  transgression  of  the  Law. 

And  that  no  Bishops  nor  any  ecclesiastical  governors  may  at  any 
time  exercise  their  government  by  their  own  private  will  or  pleasure, 
but  only  by  such  rules,  canons,  and  constitutions  as  shall  be  hereafter 
by  Act  of  Parliament  ratified  and  established;  and  that  sufficient  pro- 
vision be  made  to  secure  both  ministers  and  people  against  the  evils  of 
Arbitrary  Government  in  the  Church. 

These  Presbyterian  proposals  were  rejected  by  the  bishops 
in  1661.  But  unless  we  mistake,  every  one  of  these  Presby- 
terian Proposals  has  been  complied  with  by  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States.    Baxter  said  in  1691 : 

Oh,  how  little  would  it  have  cost  your  Churchmen  in  1660  and  1661 
to  have  prevented  the  calamitous  and  dangerous  divisions  of  this  land, 
and  our  common  dangers  thereby  and  the  hurt  that  many  hundred 
thousand  souls  have  received  by  it  ?  And  how  little  would  it  cost  them 
yet  to  prevent  the  continuance  of  it.     (Penitent  Confession^  Preface.) 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE  99 

If  the  Church  of  England  and  the  American  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  are  now  willing  to  pay  this  small  cost, 
it  is  no  time  for  Presbyterians  to  increase  their  demands. 
They  should  vie  with  their  Episcopal  brethren  in  generosity 
and  self-sacrifice.  I  believe  that  ere  long  Presbyterians  will 
accept  the  Proposals  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  thus  show 
that  they  have  the  same  spirit  of  accommodation  and  de- 
sire for  the  unity  of  Christ's  Church  that  their  fathers  showed 
in  the  proposals  of  1661.  After  more  than  two  centuries 
a  House  of  Bishops  has  accepted  all  that  their  fathers  pro- 
posed. 

3.  Episcopal  ordination  and  Presbyterian  ordination  are  not 
inconsistent  but  complementary.  A  Presbyterian  minister  is 
ordained  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery 
with  a  moderator  at  their  head.  The  ordination  is  the  act 
of  the  whole  body  organised  for  the  government  of  the  con- 
gregations and  presbyters  within  its  bounds.  The  Episcopal 
minister  is  ordained  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
bishop,  with  two  or  more  attending  presbyters.  We  shall 
place  the  directory  and  the  ordinal  side  by  side  for  compari- 
son. 

Ordinal  Directory 

The   bishop,   with   the   priests  The  candidate  shall  kneel  down 

present,    shall    lay    their    hands      in  the  most  convenient  part  of  the 
severally  upon  the  head  of  every      Church.     Then  the  presiding  min- 
one  that  receiveth  the  order  of      ister  shall,  by  prayer,  and  with  the 
priesthood,  the  receivers  humbly      laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Pres- 
kneeling  upon   their  knees,   and      bytery,  according  to  the  Apostolic 
the  bishop  saying,  "Receive  the      example,  solemnly  ordain  him  to 
Holy  Ghost  for  the  office  and      the  holy  office  of  the  gospel  minis- 
work  of  a  priest  in  the  Church  of      try.     Prayer  being  ended,  he  shall 
God,  now  committed  unto  thee      rise  from  his  knees;  and  the  min- 
by  the  imposition  of  our  hands."      ister  who  presides  first  and  after- 
ward all  the  members  of  the  Pres- 
bytery in  their  order,  shall  take  him 
by  the  right  hand,  saying,  in  words 
to  this  purpose,  "  We  give  you  the 
right  hand  of  fellowship  to  take 
part  of  this  ministry  with  us." 


100  CHURCH  UNTTT 

In  this  ceremony  the  presiding  minister  is  to  be  compared 
with  the  bishop,  and  the  Presbytery  with  the  two  or  more 
presbyters  associated  with  the  bishop.  There  is  the  same 
ceremony  essentially,  but  there  are  two  striking  differences: 
(a)  In  the  one  case  the  bishop  presides  and  directs  the  cere- 
mony of  ordination.  The  bishop  is  the  permanent  head  of 
the  diocese,  and  the  authority  of  the  diocese  centres  in  him. 
He  has  been  chosen  bishop  because  he  is  the  most  honoured, 
the  most  revered  and  the  most  efficient  of  the  presbyters. 
His  presidency  is  permanent,  and  thereby  of  higher  rank, 
giving  to  the  whole  service  dignity  and  unity.  The  presiding 
minister  of  the  Presbytery  may  be,  by  a  system  of  rotation, 
one  of  the  younger  members  of  the  Presbytery.  He  adds  no 
dignity  to  the  occasion,  and  if  it  should  happen,  as  it  not  in- 
frequently does,  that  he  presides  for  the  first  time,  his  pre- 
siding in  the  ordination  lacks  grace  and  propriety,  and  in  so 
far  disturbs  the  solemnity  of  the  occasion.  Unless  we  mis- 
take, it  is  a  common  experience  in  connection  with  the  cere- 
mony of  Presbyterian  ordination  that  candidates,  presbyters 
and  people  all  alike  regret  that  some  other  more  honoured 
and  more  graceful  presbyter  had  not  been  called  upon  to 
preside.  A  shifting  moderator  lacks  the  propriety,  grace 
and  dignity  attached  to  the  presidency  of  the  bishop  in  the 
government  and  in  the  ceremonies  of  the  Church.  Episco- 
pal ordination  therefore  is  greatly  to  be  preferred  to  ordina- 
tion by  a  temporary  presiding  presbyter. 

(b)  On  the  other  hand,  we  have  to  compare  the  two  or 
more  presbyters  who  are  associated  with  the  bishop  in  epis- 
copal ordination,  with  the  body  of  presbyters,  organised  as 
a  Presbytery,  who  take  part  in  presbyterial  ordination. 
This  body  of  presbyters,  embracing  the  pastors  of  the  con- 
gregations and  other  grave  and  venerable  members  who  may 
be  present,  all  with  their  hands  upon  the  head  of  the  candi- 
date, and  subsequently  giving  him  the  right  hand  of  fellow- 
ship, make  the  ceremony  a  very  impressive  one,  that  is  never 
forgotten  by  the  ordained.  This  impressiveness,  this 
weight  of  authority,  this  extent  of  influence,  seems  to  be 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPa'^'i:  lOl 

lacking  in  the  Episcopal  ceremony.  Presbyterian  ordina- 
tion is  the  official  act  of  the  entire  body  of  ministers  in  the 
Presbytery,  and  therefore  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  as 
such,  in  the  exercise  of  its  Presbyterial  functions.  Episco- 
pal ordination  lacks  this  authority  of  the  organised  Presby- 
tery, and  concentrates  the  attention  upon  the  authority  of 
the  bishop.  It  is  a  common  theory,  if  we  mistake  not,  in  the 
Episcopal  Churches  that  the  presbyters  are  merely  attendants 
on  the  bishop  and  that  they  do  not  represent  the  body  of 
presbyters  in  their  act.  It  seems  to  be  the  common  opinion 
that  the  term  '*our  hands"  in  the  Ordinal  does  not  refer  to 
the  hands  of  bishop  and  presbyters,  but  only  to  the  bishop's 
hands,  speaking  as  the  head  of  the  Church. 
The  Bishop  of  Salisbury  states  it  mildly  when  he  says: 

As  regards  the  position  of  Presbyters  who  assist  in  the  ordination 
of  other  Presbyters,  I  feel  great  reluctance  to  acquiesce  in  the  position 
that  they  are  mere  witnesses  although  that  is,  I  believe,  the  ordinary 
assumption.  They  represent  the  Presbyterate  or  'Sacerdotium'  receiv- 
ing new  members  into  its  order,  and,  whether  they  actually  touch  the 
heads  of  the  ordinands  or  not,  their  presence  and  prayers  are  an  ordi- 
nary part  of  the  mystery  of  ordination  considered  as  a  means  of  grace. 
(The  Ministry  of  Grace.    American  2d  edition,  pp.  168-9.) 

When  the  two  ceremonies  are  compared,  each  has  its  ad- 
vantages and  its  disadvantages.  If  the  bishop  took  the  place 
of  the  presiding  minister,  or  moderator,  in  the  Directory  of 
Worship,  and  the  Presbytery  took  the  place  of  the  two  or 
more  attending  presbyters  of  the  Ordinal,  the  two  cere- 
monies would  be  equally  improved  by  becoming  identical. 
When  the  happy  union  is  consummated.  Episcopacy  and 
Presbytery  may  each  contribute  an  equal  share  to  a  Church 
that  will  be  higher,  better  and  more  efficient  than  either. 


V 

THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS 
I.    THE  APOSTOLIC  COMMISSION 

The  Validity  of  Orders  depends  upon  the  Apostolic 
Commission  perpetuated  in  unbroken  succession  of  the  min- 
istry in  the  Christian  Church.  The  Lord  commissioned  the 
Twelve  shortly  before  his  final  departure  from  earth  to  the 
Father.  There  are  several  reports  of  the  commission  in 
the  Gospels,  the  relative  value  of  which  is  much  disputed  in 
the  Church.     These  I  have  discussed  at  length  elsewhere.* 

The  chief  commission,  in  its  original  form  in  the  Logia 
of  Matthew,  was,  as  I  suppose : 

All  authority  hath  been  given  unto  me: 
Go  ye  therefore  into  all  the  earth, 
And  make  disciples  of  all  nations, 
Baptise  them  into  my  name, 
And  teach  them  to  keep  my  commands; 
And  I  am  with  you  unto  the  end. 

Matt,  xxviii.  18-20  (c/.  Mk.  xvi.  15-18). 

This  commission  imparts  the  authority  of  the  Lord  to 
the  Twelve  to  enter  upon  a  world-wide  ministry.  This 
ministry  consists  in  these  things:  (1)  They  were  to  make 
all  nations  disciples  of  Christ.  (2)  They  were  to  baptise 
them  into  his  name,  which  became  in  our  Gospel  of  Matthew, 
*'  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  involving  a  recognition  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  and 
subsequently  of  the  Holy  Trinity.  (3)  They  were  to  teach 
the  commands  of  Christ  and  see  to  it  that  these  commands 
were  executed. 

*  The  Apostolic  Commission,  in  the  Vol.  Studies  in  Honour  of  Basil  L. 
Gildersleeve,  1902,  pp.  1  /.     Cf.  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  pp.  229  /. 

102 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  103 

Another  form  of  the  commission  is  this : 

And  when  he  had  said  this,  he  breathed  on  them,  and  saith  unto 
them,  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost;  whosesoever  sins  ye  forgive,  they  are 
forgiven  unto  them;  whosesoever  (sins)  ye  retain,  they  are  retained. 
John  XX.  22-23  (c/.  Matt.  xvi.  17-19;  xviii.  15-20). 

Another,  and  indeed  a  distinct  commission,  was  given  in 
connection  with  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  ac- 
cording to  I  Cor.  xi.  24,  "This  do  in  remembrance  (or  com- 
memoration) of  me."  But  these  words  are  not  in  the  original 
report  of  Mark  as  taken  up  into  Matthew  and  the  original 
Luke.^  In  later  texts  of  Luke  they  have  come  in  from  the 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  I  have  no  doubt  that  those  words 
are  substantially  correct;  but  it  is  not  certain  whether  they 
are  inferential  on  the  part  of  St.  Paul  or  whether  Jesus  actu- 
ally said  them.  And  it  is  improbable  in  view  of  their  absence 
from  the  Gospels  that  they  were  uttered  by  Jesus  on  the 
night  of  his  betrayal.  At  all  events,  if  these  authors  knew  of 
them,  they  did  not  regard  them  as  important  for  their  pur- 
pose; and  we  cannot  rightly  base  the  entire  apostolic  com- 
mission upon  them.  The  Gospels  all  give  apostolic  commis- 
sions. They  evidently  did  not  regard  this  as  a  commission 
or  they  would  have  given  it.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  com- 
mission of  St.  Paul  which  he  received,  not  from  the  Twelve, 
but  from  Jesus  himself  in  theophany.  This  commission  cor- 
responds with  those  given  by  Jesus  to  the  Twelve  according 
to  the  Gospels,  and  St.  Paul  was  not  specially  commissioned 
by  Jesus  to  celebrate  the  Eucharist. 

There  are  several  other  places  in  the  Gospels  where  the 
Twelve  and  the  Seventy  receive  special  commissions;  but 
those  given  above  are  the  principal  ones  upon  which  the 
several  theories  of  the  Christian  ministry  depend. 

It  is  evident  from  them  that  our  Lord  commissioned  the 
Twelve  with  his  authority  over  his  Kingdom  or  Church,  and 
that  this  authority  was  to  be  exercised  in  the  use  of  the 
functions    of  prophecy,  priesthood  and    royalty,  reflecting 

*  Cf.  Messiah  of  the  Gos'pels,  pp.  122  /. 


104  CHURCH  UNITY 

his  own  authority  in  these  three  spheres.  They  had  (1) 
prophetic  authority  to  preach  and  to  teach;  (2)  priestly  au- 
thority to  celebrate  the  sacraments  of  baptism  and  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  and  conduct  the  worship  of  the  Church;  (3) 
royal  authority  to  organise  the  Church,  and  to  govern,  and 
discipline  the  disciples  whom  they  received  into  the  Church 
by  baptism  and  whom  they  retained  in  the  fellowship  of  the 
Holy  Communion.  In  the  first  of  these  commissions  the 
prophetic  authority  is  most  prominent,  in  the  second  the 
power  of  the  keys,  in  the  third  the  priestly  or  sacramental 
function.  But  they  all  are  involved  in  the  true  functions 
and  full  commission  of  the  apostolate  and  their  successors 
in  the  Christian  ministry.  It  would  be  unbiblical  to  exagger- 
ate or  to  depreciate  any  one  of  them.  When  our  Lord  gave 
any  one  of  them  he  did  not  mean  to  exalt  it  above  the  others, 
or  to  exclude  any  of  the  others.  All  of  the  functions  alike 
are  involved  and  in  harmonious  proportions  in  the  Apostolic 
Commission. 

It  is  quite  true  that  the  whole  Christian  community  as 
one  body,  one  Church,  the  Kingdom  of  God,  was  "an  elect 
race,  a  royal  priesthood,  a  holy  nation,  a  people  for  (God's) 
own  possession";*  inasmuch  as  the  Christian  Church  in- 
herited the  original  covenant  of  Horeb,  in  which  Israel  was 
taken  to  be  "a  kingdom  of  priests  and  a  holy  nation";^ 
but  Jesus  Christ  as  the  son  of  the  Father,  the  great  high 
priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek,  the  prophet  and  king 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  committed  his  authority  while 
absent  from  this  earth  to  a  ministering  body  which  should 
exercise  all  these  functions  on  his  behalf  and  for  the  bene- 
fit of  the  entire  Kingdom,  so  that  all  disciples  become  "  fellow- 
citizens  with  the  saints  and  of  the  household  of  God,  being 
built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets, 
Christ  Jesus  himself  being  the  chief  comer-stone."^ 

» I  Peter  ii.  9.  » Ex.  xix.  6.  » Eph.  ii.  19-20. 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  105 


II.    PRESBYTER  BISHOPS 

The  Twelve  in  their  ministry  transferred  their  apostolic 
authority  by  ordination  to  the  presbyter  bishops  which 
were  ordained  over  the  churches  organised  by  them  in  the 
different  cities  where  they  made  disciples.  Such  presbyter 
bishops  were  ordained  by  the  authority  of  the  Twelve  in 
Jerusalem^  and  by  St.  Paul  in  the  several  churches  which 
he  founded.^  These  presbyter  bishops  received  authority 
for  the  whole  work  of  the  ministry  in  the  localities  where 
they  were  appointed.  So  St.  Paul  exhorts  the  presbyters 
of  Ephesus:  "Take  heed  unto  yourselves  and  to  the  flock, 
in  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  bishops,  to  feed 
the  Church  of  the  Lord  which  he  purchased  with  his  own 
blood."^ 

These  presbyter  bishops  were  the  only  local  authorities 
over  the  churches  known  to  the  New  Testament.  There  were, 
however,  other  apostles  than  the  Twelve,  such  as  St.  Paul 
and  St.  Barnabas  ordained  to  a  general  ministry  over  the 
churches  which  they  founded.  These  were  ordained  by 
prophets  and  teachers  of  the  church  of  Antioch.^  These 
prophets  and  teachers,  as  well  as  the  many  others  which  are 
mentioned  in  the  book  of  Acts  and  the  Epistles,  must  have 
been  ordained  by  the  Twelve  or  others  to  whom  they  had 
committed  the  ministry.  St.  PauFs  disciples,  Silas,  Titus, 
Timothy  and  others,  were  commissioned  by  him  at  times 
with  a  general  superintendence  over  the  work  of  the  churches 
with  authority  to  ordain  presbyters  therein.^  Ordination 
to  this  general  work  of  the  ministry  was  not  reserved  by 
the  apostles  to  themselves.  St.  Paul  and  St.  Barnabas  were 
ordained  by  prophets  and  teachers  at  Antioch.  They  did 
not  go  up  to  Jerusalem  to  be  ordained  by  the  Twelve.  Tim- 
othy was  ordained  by  "the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  pres- 
bytery."    St.  Paul's  reference  to  this,  in  connection  with  the 

'  Acts  xi.  30;  xv.  6,  22.  «  Acts  xiv.  23;  xx.  17. 

3  Acts  XX.  28.  *  Acts  xiii.  1-3. 

"  I  Cor.  viii.  Qsq.;l  Tim.  iv.  6  sq.,  v.  22;  Titus  i.  5. 


106  CHURCH  UNITY 

general  ministry  of  Timothy  about  which  he  is  speaking, 
seems  to  exclude  any  higher  or  subsequent  ordination. 

These  general  ministers,  who  were  so  numerous  and  neces- 
sary in  the  Apostolic  Age  of  the  founding  of  Christian  churches, 
gradually  disappear  in  the  second  Christian  century,  and 
the  authority  of  the  Christian  ministry  appears  as  localised 
in  Jerusalem,  Antioch  and  the  churches  of  Asia  in  a  mo- 
narchial  parochial  episcopate  with  a  higher  jurisdiction  than 
presbyters.  In  the  churches  of  Corinth,  Alexandria,  and 
apparently  in  Rome,  and  so  probably  throughout  the  West, 
the  churches  were  under  the  authority  of  a  college  of  presby- 
ter bishops. 

But  early  in  the  third  century  the  monarchical  episcopate 
had  become  universal  in  the  Christian  Church,  and  there 
were  no  longer  presbyter  bishops,  but  bishops  with  a  higher 
jurisdiction  and  presbyters  with  a  lower  jurisdiction  in  the 
Christian  ministry  The  bishops  differed  from  the  presby- 
ters not  in  ministerial  functions  but  only  in  jurisdiction. 
The  bishop  had  the  same  three  functions  of  prophecy, 
priesthood  and  royalty  as  his  presbyters.  He  differed  from 
them  in  his  executive  headship  and  higher  and  more  general 
supervision  and  jurisdiction  over  the  local  church. 

How  then  did  these  monarchical  bishops  originate  ?  There 
are  three  theories.  (1)  They  were  appointed  and  consecrated 
by  the  apostles.  This  is  possible  so  far  as  Jerusalem, 
Antioch  and  the  churches  of  Asia  are  concerned,  although 
there  is  no  record  or  suggestion  of  it  in  the  New  Testament, 
but  it  is  then  difficult  to  understand  how  the  churches  of 
Corinth  and  Alexandria,  not  to  speak  of  Rome,  could  be 
without  them,  if  they  were  a  real  apostolic  institution. 

(2)  They  originated  from  the  localisation  of  the  apostles 
and  prophets  when  their  general  ministry  was  no  longer  re- 
quired. But  there  is  no  evidence  of  such  a  localisation  in 
any  particular  case,  and  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  a  general  au- 
thority over  a  number  of  churches  could  be  reduced  to  a  par- 
ticular jurisdiction  over  a  single  church,  for  it  is  certain  that 
these  primitive  bishops  were  bishops  of  cities  or  parishes. 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  107 

not  bishops  of  dioceses  or  provinces.  A  general  authority 
might  become  locaHsed  in  a  province,  but  hardly  in  a  city. 

(3)  The  most  natural  explanation  is  that  the  monarchical 
episcopate  was  a  normal  development  of  the  executive  office, 
the  temporary  president  of  the  college  of  presbyters  gradu- 
ally becoming  the  permanent  president,  with  the  general 
oversight  which  justifies  the  name  of  bishop,  while  the  college 
of  presbyters  retained  the  older  title  of  presbyters. 

However  we  may  explain  the  elevation  of  the  bishop  above 
the  presbyters,  it  is  evident  that  it  was  a  normal  and  valid 
Christian  institution,  which  gradually  originated  in  the 
Church  under  the  guidance  of  the  divine  Spirit,  and  which 
developed  still  further  into  archbishop,  patriarch  and  pope, 
just  as  the  diaconate  also  developed  downward  into  five 
minor  orders  in  the  early  Church.  In  this  enlargement  of 
the  Christian  ministry,  however,  the  essential  ministry  re- 
mained through  all  history  in  the  presbyter,  for  he  always 
had  in  himself  the  three  functions  of  prophecy,  priesthood 
and  royalty,  which  the  deacon  and  the  lower  orders  had  not, 
and  which  the  bishop  in  various  grades  of  the  hierarchy  had 
no  more  than  he. 

For  the  perpetuation  of  the  Christian  ministry  a  valid 
ordination  is  necessary.  That  ordination  has  always  from 
the  beginning  of  the  Christian  Church  been  by  the  laying 
on  of  the  hands  of  presbyters.  The  presbyters  have  all  the 
functions  of  the  Christian  ministry  and  they  alone  can  trans- 
mit them  to  others.  So  soon  as  the  bishop  was  raised  to  a 
higher  jurisdiction  than  presbyter,  the  bishop  became  the 
most  prominent  person  in  ordinations;  but  in  ordinations 
he  did  not  act  alone  but  associated  presbyters  with  himself 
in  the  laying  on  of  hands;  and  his  part  in  the  ceremony,  so  far 
as  the  transmission  of  ministerial  functions  was  concerned, 
was  that  of  a  ministering  presbyter  equally  with  other  pres- 
byters. That  which  was  the  bishop's  own  to  impart  was 
the  authority  from  his  higher  jurisdiction  to  exercise  those 
functions. 

St.  Timothy  was  ordained  by  presbyters;    St.  Paul  and 


108  CHURCH  UNITY 

St.  Barnabas  by  prophets  and  teachers;  there  is  no  evidence 
from  the  New  Testament  that  any  other  ordination  was  re- 
quired. When  the  church  of  Alexandria  changed  its  pres- 
byterial  college  into  a  monarchical  episcopate,  it  was  doubt- 
less presbyters  that  appointed  the  bishop.  He  did  not  go 
elsewhere  for  episcopal  consecration;  and  there  is  no  evidence 
that  he  was  consecrated  even  by  presbyters.  His  presbyterial 
ordination  was  adequate  for  the  exercise  of  his  episcopal 
jurisdiction  as  well  as  for  his  functions  as  presbyter.  If, 
in  later  times,  episcopal  consecration  was  required  by  Canon 
Law,  that  was  in  the  interests  of  law  and  order  and  propriety, 
not  at  all  in  the  interest  of  validity  of  orders. 

Langen,  the  Old  Catholic  professor  at  Bonn,  thinks  that 
the  names  of  the  first  popes,  Linus,  Anencletus,  Clement, 
all  belonged  to  the  college  of  presbyters  in  Rome.^  Words- 
worth^ agrees  with  him  and  says  that  the  episcopate  in  Rome 
in  the  Ignatian  sense  would  date  from  the  time  of  Pius. 
Whether  the  change  dates  from  Pius  or  from  earlier  or  later 
presiding  presbyters,  this  theory  best  explains  the  variations 
in  the  order  of  names  of  the  oldest  lists  of  popes  and  also  the 
fact  that  Clement  writes  as  a  presbyter  to  the  church  of 
Corinth  with  the  authority  of  the  church  of  Rome.  Turmel 
does  not  succeed  in  overcoming  this  opinion.^ 

The  episcopal  succession  does  not  depend  upon  any  theory 
as  to  its  origin.  The  president  of  a  college  of  presbyters 
transmits  succession  just  as  truly  as  a  monarchical  bishop 
or  an  imperial  pope.  When  the  Reunion  of  Christendom 
shall  eventually  take  place,  the  imperial  papacy  will  doubtless 
become  a  limited  monarchy  and  probably  a  republican  presi- 
dency, without  in  any  way  impairing  the  succession  or  the 
essential  nature  of  the  papacy  as  the  supreme  jurisdiction  of 
the  Church.  The  president  of  the  United  States  has  greater 
plenitude  of  jurisdiction  than  the  King  of  England  or  the 
Emperor  of  Austria.    The  title  of  Pope  amounts  to  little,  for 

>  Oeach.  der  Rom.  Kirche.    Bd.  I  s.  100,  101. 
*  Ministry  of  Grace.     Am.  edition,  p.  131. 
■  Histoire  du  dogma  de  la  PapatUe,  pp.  68  /. 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  109 

it  is  a  common  title  of  a  Russian  priest,  and  means  nothing 
more  than  father,  the  common  title  of  a  Roman  priest. 

The  question  of  the  Validity  of  Orders  is  a  question  which 
has  become  of  great  importance,  owing  to  the  divisions  in  the 
Western  Church  since  the  great  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth 
century  and  to  subsequent  controversies  and  divisions  among 
Protestants.  Hundreds  of  volumes  and  tracts  have  been 
written  on  all  sides  of  this  question;  but  almost  all  of  them 
have  been  polemic  in  character.  They  have  used  the  meth- 
ods of  an  advocate  rather  than  those  of  a  sincere  searcher  for 
truth  and  fact.  They  have  usually  misunderstood  or  mis- 
represented the  real  facts  of  the  case,  and  it  is  a  dreary  task 
to  eliminate  fact  from  fiction  and  truth  from  theorising. 
But  the  methods  of  Historical  Criticism  gradually  dispel  the 
mists  of  controversy,  and  it  is  evident  that  the  entire  question 
depends  upon  a  few  simple  facts  and  truths. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  recognises  the  validity  of 
Orders  in  the  heretical  Churches  of  the  East  and  the  schis- 
matic Greek  Church.  They  are  irregular  and  have  no 
proper  jurisdiction,  but  they  are  valid  so  far  as  ministerial 
functions  are  concerned;  and  so  the  question  of  validity  of 
Orders  does  not  arise  in  connection  with  propositions  for 
unity  with  the  Greek  and  Oriental  Churches.  The  situ- 
ation is,  however,  entirely  different  with  the  Protestant 
Churches.  Rome  does  not  recognise  the  ordination  of  any 
of  the  ministers  of  the  Protestant  Churches  as  valid.  And 
among  Protestants  the  validity  of  presbyterial  Orders  is 
questioned  by  the  common  traditions  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land and  her  daughters  since  the  latter  half  of  the  seventeenth 
century.  It  is  necessary  for  us  to  consider  the  question  first 
in  connection  with  these  controversies,  and  then  we  shall 
be  prepared  to  discuss  the  whole  question  on  the  basis  of 
certain  great  historical  principles. 


110  CHURCH  UNITY 


III.    THE  VALIDITY  OF  ANGLICAN  ORDERS 

The  question  of  the  vaHdity  of  Anglican  Orders  was  raised 
before  Pope  Leo  XIII,  in  the  interest  of  a  reunion  of  the 
Church  of  England  with  Rome.  There  was  a  division  of 
opinion  in  Rome  on  the  subject,  and  many  eminent  scholars 
were  in  favour  of  the  recognition  of  Anglican  Orders,  and  the 
drift  of  opinion  was  at  first  strongly  in  that  direction.  The 
Pope  appointed  an  able  commission  representing  both  sides 
of  the  question.  The  whole  matter  was  carefully  considered 
and  at  length  decided  by  the  Pope,  on  the  basis  of  the  report 
of  the  commission,  that  Anglican  Orders  were  invalid.  This 
decision  was  made  known  to  the  Roman  Catholic  episcopate 
in  an  Apostolic  Letter.^  The  two  archbishops  of  England 
published  an  answer^  in  which  they  maintain  the  validity 
of  the  Orders  of  the  Church  of  England.  The  Cardinal 
Archbishop  and  bishops  of  the  province  of  Westminster 
replied  to  this  answer.^  A  considerable  number  of  writings 
were  also  published  on  both  sides  of  the  question.  I  shall 
use  the  comment,  I  made  upon  these  documents  at  the  time, 
with  such  additions  and  changes  as  are  now  called  for. 

These  official  documents  are  of  great  importance  for  the 
present  and  the  future  relations  of  the  Anglican  and  the 
Roman  Catholic  Communions.  The  decision  of  the  Pope  is 
adverse  to  the  validity  of  Anglican  Orders,  and  the  Anglican 
archbishops  maintain  their  validity.  From  this  point  of 
view  it  seems  as  if  an  insuperable  obstacle  to  reunion  had 
been  reached.  Yet  a  more  careful  study  of  these  documents 
makes  it  evident  that  a  very  great  advance  toward  reunion 
has  been  made  and  that  a  door  to  further  opportunities  is 
still  open. 

1.  It  is  a  decided  gain  that  the  Pope  has  narrowed  the 
range  of  the  discussion  and  concentrated  it  in  his  statement 

*  ApostoliccB  CuroBy  1896. 

'  Anstuer  of  the  Archbishops  of  England  to  the  Apostolic  Letter  of  Pope 
Leo  XIII,  1897. 

"  Vindication  of  the  Bull  Apostolicas  Curce,  1898. 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  111 

that  "in  pronouncing  the  decision  in  the  Gordon  case  in 
1704,  weight  was  given  to  no  other  reason  than  the  deject  of 
form  and  intention";  and  the  Pope  limits  his  re-examination 
of  the  case  to  these  two  points.  Thus  an  immense  amount  of 
irrelevant  material  is  swept  out  of  the  field  of  discussion  for 
all  future  time. 

2.  A  further  gain  is  in  the  position  taken  by  the  Anglican 
archbishops  when  they  say:  "We  acknowledge  therefore, 
with  the  Pope,  that  laying  on  of  hands  is  the  matter  of  ordina- 
tion; we  acknowledge  that  the  form  is  prayer  or  blessing 
appropriate  to  the  ministry  to  be  conferred ;  we  acknowledge 
that  the  intention  of  the  Church,  as  far  as  it  is  externally 
manifested,  is  to  be  ascertained,  so  that  we  may  discern  if 
it  agrees  with  the  mind  of  the  Lord  and  his  apostles  and 
with  the  statutes  of  the  Universal  Church."  This  still 
further  limits  the  range  of  difference  to  the  questions,  what 
constitutes  valid  form  and  intention  in  ordination,  and 
whether  the  Anglican  form  and  intention  are  so  defective 
as  to  render  ordination  invalid. 

3.  The  question  is  in  part  a  historical  question,  and  is  to 
be  decided  on  matters  of  fact  by  historical  evidence.  The 
Pope  reopened  the  case  which  had  been  decided  in  1704, 
reviewed  the  evidence  with  the  help  of  twelve  judges,  "whose 
opinions  in  the  matter  were  known  to  be  divergent,"  who  had 
access  to  "all  documents  bearing  on  this  question  which 
were  known  to  exist  in  the  Vatican  archives  " ;  they  had  au- 
thority "to  search  for  new  ones,  and  even  to  have  at  their 
disposal  all  acts  relating  to  this  subject  which  are  adduced 
by  learned  men  on  both  sides."  There  can  be  no  reasonable 
doubt  that  the  case  was  considered  in  a  careful,  calm  and 
judicial  manner.  It  was  unanimously  decided  on  the  evi- 
dence before  the  court,  and  then  after  further  deliberation 
this  decision  was  ratified  by  the  Pope.  And  yet  the  Pope's 
decision  cannot  be  accepted  by  the  Christian  world  as  final. 
The  right  words  in  the  Answer  of  the  Anglican  archbishops 
are  those  in  which  they  challenge  the  evidence  and  demand 
its  publication.     "Therefore  all  those  documents  ought  to 


Ii2  CHURCH  UNITY 

be  made  public  If  the  matter  is  to  be  put  on  a  fair  footing  for 
judgment."  .  .  .  **The  documents  are  preserved  in  the 
keeping  of  the  holy  office  and  ought  to  be  published  if  the 
interest  of  historical  truth  is  to  be  consulted." 

There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  good  will  of  Pope  Leo  XIII 
— ^his  intent  to  give  the  case  a  careful,  honest  and  upright 
consideration  and  to  make  an  equitable  final  decision.  But  the 
Anglican  Archbishops  contested  the  accuracy  of  the  evidence 
and  its  sufficiency.  How  could  the  Pope  be  certain  that  all 
his  evidence  was  accurate  and  that  all  the  evidence  was  be- 
fore him  ?  It  is  quite  possible  that  the  Anglican  Archbishops 
might  invalidate  some  of  the  evidence,  and  that  they  might 
present  valuable  counter-evidence  from  the  archives  of  Great 
Britain  if  they  had  the  opportunity.  This  demand  for  the 
publication  of  the  evidence  is  a  righteous  demand.  There  is  no 
valid  reason  why  the  present  Pope  should  not  comply  with  it. 
It  is  greatly  to  be  desired  that  he  should,  in  the  interest  of 
historical  truth,  and  for  the  vindication  before  the  world  of 
a  papal  decision.  Then  if  the  evidence  can  be  impeached, 
the  Anglicans  must  do  it;  if  they  have  other  evidence  they 
must  adduce  it.  Then  the  Pope  may  be  justified  in  reopen- 
ing the  case.  He  must  do  so,  according  to  Canon  Law,  if 
a  sufficient  amount  of  new  evidence  is  presented  to  materially 
alter  the  case.  He  would  doubtless  do  so  gladly  under  any 
such  circumstances.  At  present  the  Anglican  Bishops  have 
the  advantage  of  the  discussion  at  this  point,  and  they  will 
retain  this  advantage  until  the  Pope  yields  to  their  reasonable 
request  and  publishes  his  evidence.  Then  it  is  altogether 
probable  that  the  advantage  will  pass  over  to  the  papal  side; 
for  it  is  doubtful  whether  any  evidence  of  importance  can 
be  produced  which  has  not  already  been  duly  considered 
by  the  papal  courts.  This  statement  is  justified  by  the  pub- 
lication of  part  of  the  evidence  in  the  Reply  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Bishops  of  England  and  by  other  writers.  At  the 
same  time  it  is  plain  that  the  entire  case  is  not  before  the 
world,  but  only  so  much  of  it  as  advocates  use  to  present 
their  side  of  a  controversy. 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  113 

The  historical  question,  after  all,  is  simply  this,  whether 
the  form  of  ordination  in  the  Edwardine  Ordinal  was  valid. 
As  the  Pope  says,  "the  judgment  of  the  Pontiff  applies 
universally  to  all  Anglican  ordinations,  because,  although  it 
refers  to  a  particular  case  (that  of  Gordon)  it  is  not  based  upon 
any  reason  special  to  that  case,  but  upon  the  deject  oj  form, 
which  defect  equally  affects  all  these  ordinations."  The 
defect,  according  to  the  Roman  opinion,  is  a  defect  in  the 
Ordinal  itself  and  not  in  any  particular  thing  in  the  ordina- 
tion of  Gordon.  This  is  sound  reasoning.  Unless  Angli- 
cans can  show  that  the  Edwardine  Ordinal  contains  a  valid 
form  of  ordination,  they  have  no  case. 

The  Pope  well  says: 

The  words  which,  until  recently,  were  commonly  held  by  Anglicans 
to  constitute  the  proper  form  of  priestly  ordination,  namely  ''Receive 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  certainly  do  not  in  the  least  definitely  express  the  sacred 
order  of  priesthood  or  its  grace  and  power,  which  is  chiefly  the  power 
of  consecrating  and  offering  the  true  Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord  (Council 
of  Trent,  Sess.  xxiii.,  De  Sacr.  Ord.,  Can.  1),  in  that  sacrifice  which  is  no 
"nude  commemoration  of  the  sacrifice  offered  on  the  cross"  {Ibid.y 
Sess.  xxii.,  De  Sacrif.  Missse,  Can.  3).  This  form,  had,  indeed,  after- 
ward added  to  it  the  words,  "for  the  office  and  work  of  a  priest"  etc.,  but 
this  rather  shows  that  the  Anglicans  themselves  perceived  that  the  first 
form  was  defective  and  inadequate.  But,  even  if  this  addition  could 
give  to  the  form  its  due  significance,  it  was  introduced  too  late,  as  a 
century  had  already  elapsed  since  the  adoption  of  the  Edwardine 
Ordinal;  for  as  the  Hierarchy  had  become  extinct,  there  remained  no 
power  of  ordaining. 

The  Anglican  Archbishops  seek  to  avoid  this  powerful 
argumentation  in  this  way;  they  say: 

This  form  then,  whether  contained  in  one  sentence  as  in  the  Roman 
Church,  or  in  two  as  in  ours,  is  amply  sufficient  to  create  a  Bishop,  if 
the  true  intention  be  openly  declared,  which  is  done  in  other  prayers 
and  suffrages  (which  clearly  refer  to  the  office,  work  and  ministry  of  a 
Bishop),  in  the  examination,  and  other  like  ways. 

But  this  argument  was  anticipated  by  the  Pope  when  he  says: 

In  vain  has  help  been  recently  sought  for  the  plea  of  the  validity  of 
Orders  from  the  other  prayers  of  the  same  Ordinal.    For,  to  put  aside 


114  CHURCH  UNITY 

other  reasons  which  show  this  to  be  insufficient  for  the  purpose  in  the 
Anglican  rite,  let  this  argument  suffice  for  all,  that  from  them  has  been 
deliberately  removed  whatever  set  forth  the  dignity  and  office  of  the 
priesthood  in  the  Catholic  rite. 

In  other  words,  the  plea  that  "  true  intention  "  is  expressed 
in  other  parts  of  the  services  is  overcome  by  the  contention 
that  that  intention  itself  is  void  of  the  essential  significance 
of  priesthood.  Thus  the  whole  question  rests,  according 
to  the  Anglican  Archbishops,  on  the  "true  intention"  of  the 
other  parts  of  the  ordination  service. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Bishops  in  their  reply  call  attention 
to  a  misconception  of  the  Anglican  Archbishops: 

You  have  failed  to  observe  the  word  "or^'  in  the  proposition  in 
which  the  Bull  states  what  the  requirements  are.  The  proposition  is 
disjunctive.  The  rite  for  the  priesthood  the  Pope  says  "must  definitely 
express  the  sacred  Order  of  the  priesthood  or  its  grace  and  power, 
which  is  chiefly  the  power  of  consecrating  and  offering  the  true  Body 
and  Blood  of  our  Lord"  .  .  .  What  Leo  XIII  means  is  that  the  Order 
to  which  the  candidate  is  being  promoted  must  be  distinctly  indicated 
either  by  its  accepted  name  or  by  an  explicit  reference  to  the  grace  and 
power  which  belong  to  it: — for  the  true  historical  fact,  a  fact  which  was 
carefully  investigated  in  the  recent  commissions,  is  that  not  one  single 
Ordination  rite  which  the  Catholic  Church  has  accepted  is  without  one 
or  other  of  these  alternative  modes  of  definite  signification. 

It  is  not  simply  a  question  whether  the  Ordinal  intends  to 
ordain  church  oflBcers  with  the  names  priests  and  bishops, 
but  whether  it  intends  to  ordain  a  real  sacrificing  priesthood. 

(4)  The  essential  question  in  debate  is  thus  evidently 
that  of  intention.  Here,  again,  we  need  not  go  further  than 
the  Edwardine  Ordinal.     As  the  Pope  says: 

The  history  of  that  time  is  sufficiently  eloquent  as  to  the  animus  of 
the  authors  of  the  Ordinal  against  the  Catholic  Church,  as  to  the  abettors 
whom  they  associated  with  themselves  from  the  heterodox  sects,  and  as 
to  the  end  they  had  in  view.  Being  fully  aware  of  the  necessary  con- 
nection between  faith  and  worship,  between  the  law  of  believing  and 
the  law  of  fraying,  under  a  pretext  of  returning  to  the  primitive  form, 
they  corrupted  in  many  ways  the  liturgical  order  to  suit  the  errors  of 
the  reformers.  For  this  reason  in  the  whole  Ordinal,  not  only  is  there 
no  clear  mention  of  the  Sacrifice,  of  consecration  to  the  priesthood  and 


THE  VALIDITY   OF  ORDERS  115 

of  the  power  of  consecrating  and  offering  sacrifices,  but,  as  we  have  just 
stated,  every  trace  of  these  things  which  had  been  in  such  prayers  of 
the  Catholic  rite  as  they  had  not  entirely  rejected,  was  deliberately 
removed  and  struck  out.  In  this  way  the  native  character,  or  spirit,  as 
it  is  called,  of  the  Ordinal  cleariy  manifests  itself.  Hence,  if  vitiated 
in  its  origin,  it  was  wholly  insufficient  to  confer  Orders. 

How  do  the  Anglicans  meet  this  strong  argument?  It 
would  have  been  their  glory  if  they  had  said,  Yes,  it  is  true 
the  Anglican  Church  took  part  in  the  Reformation.  It  be- 
came thereby  a  National  Reformed  Church.  It  removed 
all  Roman  errors  from  the  Liturgy.  It  was  not  the  intention 
of  the  Reformers  to  ordain  priests  to  offer  sacrifices  in  the 
Roman  Catholic  sense.  But  instead  of  this,  the  Anglican 
Archbishops  try  to  maintain  the  validity  of  the  intention  of 
the  Ordinal.  They  urge  that  the  intent  of  the  Edwardine 
Ordinal  was  to  ordain  priests  to  offer  sacrifices. 

We  confidently  assert  that  our  Ordinal,  particulariy  in  this  last 
point,  is  superior  to  the  Roman  Pontifical  in  various  ways,  inasmuch 
as  it  expresses  more  cleariy  and  faithfully  those  things  which,  by  Christ's 
institution,  belong  to  the  nature  of  priesthood  and  the  effect  of  the 
Catholic  rites  used  in  the  Universal  Church.  .  .  .  For  first  we  offer 
the  sacrifice  of  praise  and  thanksgiving;  then  next  we  plead  and  repre- 
sent before  the  Father  the  sacrifice  of  the  cross,  and  by  it  we  confidently 
entreat  remission  of  sins  and  all  other  benefits  of  the  Lord's  passion 
for  all  the  whole  Church;  and  lastly  we  offer  the  sacrifice  of  ourselves 
to  the  Creator  of  all  things  which  we  have  already  signified  by  the  obla- 
tions of  His  creatures.  This  whole  action,  in  which  the  people  has 
necessarily  to  take  its  part  with  the  Priest,  we  are  accustomed  to  call 
the  Eucharistic  sacrifice. 

This,  then,  is  the  priesthood  and  sacrifice  which  the  Angli- 
can Archbishops  find  in  the  intention  of  the  Edwardine 
Ordinal. 

(a)  The  first  thing  to  be  considered  is  whether  the  Anglican 
Archbishops  have  correctly  interpreted  the  intention  of  the 
Edwardine  Ordinal.  This  is  a  historical  question,  which 
can  only  be  determined  by  the  Ordinal  itself,  in  the  circum- 
stances of  its  composition  and  use,  and  in  the  opinions  of 
its  authors  and  users.     The  Anglican  Archbishops  are  not 


116  CHURCH  UNITY 

competent  witnesses  for  the  reign  of  Edward  VI;  they 
must  present  historical  evidence  from  that  reign.  They  do 
not,  in  their  Answer,  overcome  the  Pope's  statements  as  to 
the  "  animus  of  the  authors  of  the  Ordinal  against  the  Catholic 
Church,"  and  the  deliberate  removal  from  the  prayers  of  the 
Catholic  rite,  which  they  retained,  of  every  trace  "of  the  sacri- 
fice, of  consecration  to  the  priesthood  and  of  the  power  of 
consecrating  and  offering  sacrifices."  The  Archbishops  are 
weak  in  their  Answer  at  this  essential  point.  It  is  of  great 
importance  that  it  should  be  made  very  clear  by  indisputable 
evidence  whether  the  Edwardine  Ordinal  was  intended  to 
ordain  priests  to  offer  sacrifices,  and  if  so,  in  what  sense  of 
priest  and  sacrifice. 

(6)  The  Archbishops  wisely  say: 

Too  precise  definitions  of  the  manner  of  the  sacrifice,  or  of  the 
relation  which  unites  the  sacrifice  of  the  eternal  Priest  and  the  sacrifice 
of  the  Church,  which  in  some  way  certainly  are  one,  ought  in  our  opinion 
to  be  avoided  rather  than  pressed  into  prominence. 

All  who  have  at  heart  the  Reunion  of  Christendom  must 
sympathise  with  these  words.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  neces- 
sary that  there  should  be  a  definition  of  priesthood  and  of 
sacrifice,  which  shall  be  at  once  historic  and  intelligible.  If 
we  recognise  that  priest  and  sacrifice  may  be  used  in  various 
significations,  we  should  seek  a  definition  sufficiently  com- 
prehensive to  embrace  all  these  legitimate  significations. 
That  is  the  pathway  to  Reunion.  The  first  question  which 
emerges  here  is  whether  the  terms  priest  and  sacrifice  are 
used  by  the  Anglican  Archbishops  in  their  Answer  in  a 
legitimate  sense.  It  is  not  sufficient  to  show  that  the  sense 
given  to  these  terms  by  the  Archbishops  is  well  known  in 
the  Church  of  England  at  this  time,  or  that  it  has  been  a 
common  Anglican  opinion  since  the  Reformation;  no  sense 
of  priest  or  sacrifice  can  be  legitimate  which  does  not  rest 
upon  Biblical  and  Catholic  usage.  This  is  recognised  by 
the  Archbishops,  as  we  understand  them.  They  assert  that 
"our  Ordinal,  particularly  in  this  last  point,  is  superior  to 


THE  VALIDITY   OF  ORDERS  117 

the  Roman  Pontifical  in  various  ways,  inasmuch  as  it  ex- 
presses more  clearly  and  faithfully  those  things  which  by 
Christ's  institution  belong  to  the  nature  of  the  priesthood 
and  the  effect  of  the  Catholic  rites  used  in  the  Universal 
Church."  But  it  was  not  sufficient  for  the  Archbishops  to 
"confidently  assert"  this.  They  were  called  upon  to  prove  it 
by  indubitable  evidence;  for  it  is  not  evident  in  itself,  and 
has  not  been  recognised  as  yet  by  Roman  Catholics,  or  indeed, 
so  far  as  we  know,  by  any  but  Anglicans,  and  not  even  by  all 
Anglicans.  The  Roman  Catholic  Bishops  in  their  reply  de- 
vote great  attention  to  this  question.  They  give  ample  quo- 
tations from  Archbishop  Cranmer,  who  had  the  chief  hand 
in  composing  the  Ordinal,  and  from  his  associates,  which 
show  very  plainly  that  it  was  their  intention  to  exclude  the 
Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  priesthood  and  sacrifice;  also 
from  a  long  list  of  Anglican  divines  to  the  effect  that  Cranmer's 
"metaphorical  use  of  the  term  sacrifice"  and  "of  the  term 
priesthood  "  has  always  been  the  official  intent  of  the  Anglican 
Ordinal  and  that  therefore  no  real  priesthood  with  power 
to  offer  real  sacrifice  ever  was  given  in  the  Anglican  Ordinal. 
(c)  If,  now,  it  is  granted  that  the  Archbishops  are  correct 
in  their  interpretation  of  the  intent  of  the  Edwardine  Ordinal, 
and  that  the  Anglican  Ordinal  is  more  faithful  to  the  Biblical 
and  Catholic  conceptions  of  priesthood  and  sacrifice  than  the 
Roman  Pontifical,  there  would  still  remain  the  question 
whether  it  is  possible  to  reconcile  the  Roman  conception  of 
priesthood  and  sacrifice  with  the  Anglican.  This,  after  all, 
is  the  greatest  question  for  the  Pope  and  for  the  Anglican 
Bishops.  The  Roman  doctrine  is  definite.  It  is  open  to  the 
objection  that  it  is  "too  precise."  It  has,  however,  this  ad- 
vantage in  the  question  under  consideration,  that  it  was  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  before  the  Reformation, 
and  it  was  deliberately  rejected  by  the  Church  of  England 
at  the  Reformation,  and  another  doctrine — less  precise  and 
less  definite — was  eventually  substituted  for  it.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  a  serious  change  was  made  in  the  intention 
of  the  Church  of  England  in  the  matter  of  ordination.     It 


118  CHURCH   UNITY 

was  a  deliberate  rejection  of  the  pre-Reformation  intention, 
and  it  was  the  substitution  of  a  new  intention,  which  may 
have  been  truer  to  the  intention  of  the  original  institution 
and  of  the  Ancient  Catholic  Church,  but  which  certainly 
was  not  the  intention  of  the  Church  of  England  for  centuries 
before  the  Reformation.  The  Pope  makes  a  great  deal  of 
this.  The  Anglican  Archbishops  slip  easily  over  it.  It  is 
not  diflficult  for  the  Anglicans  to  recognise  the  intention  of 
the  Roman  ordination  as  valid,  for  the  reason  that  there  can 
be  no  doubt  whatever  as  to  the  form  and  intent  of  the  ordi- 
nation. It  is  "too  precise,"  but  it  includes  all  that  the  An- 
glicans regard  as  essential.  It  is  very  different  with  the  Roman 
Catholics.  The  Edwardine  Ordinal  had  no  intention  of 
ordaining  priests  to  offer  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  but  the 
Anglicans  at  the  time  deliberately  rejected  all  that  Roman 
Catholics  regard  as  essential  to  priesthood  and  sacrifice. 

The  Anglican  reformers  intended  to  reform  the  Church, 
and  they  did  reform  the  Ordinal  and  the  Order  of  the  Holy 
Communion  by  removing  from  the  pre-Reformation  forms 
all  things  that  they  regarded  as  contrary  to  the  mind  of 
Christ  and  his  apostles  and  the  uses  of  the  primitive  Church. 
They  substituted  for  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  sacrifice 
and  priesthood  what  they  supposed  was  the  Biblical  doctrine. 
They  retained  sacrificial  and  priestly  terminology  with  these 
supposed  Biblical  meanings,  and  they  certainly  intended  to 
ordain  a  priesthood  to  celebrate  the  Holy  Communion  with 
the  use  of  Christ's  own  words  of  institution  and  the  elements 
ordained  by  him,  and  to  omit  nothing  from  the  priesthood  and 
the  sacrifice  that  was  warranted  by  Holy  Scripture.  They 
also  raised  to  the  chief  function  of  the  Christian  ministry 
that  which  is  chief  in  the  Apostolic  Commissions  of  our  Lord, 
namely,  the  prophetic  function,  which  had  been  neglected 
in  the  pre-Reformation  Church.  This  is  expressed,  as  the 
Archbishops  say,  by  "  the  delivery  of  the  Holy  Bible,  which  is, 
in  our  opinion,  the  chief  instrument  of  the  sacred  ministry 
and  includes  in  itself  all  its  other  powers  according  to  the 
particular  Order  to  which  the  man  is  ordained." 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  119 

And  they  did  not  omit  the  priestly  function  which  they  ex- 
pressed in  terms  of  Holy  Scripture:  *'And  be  thou  a  faith- 
ful Dispenser  of  the  word  of  God  and  of  His  Holy  Sacra- 
ments" (St.  Luke  xii.  42;  I  Cor.  iv.  1).  As  dispensers  of 
the  Holy  Sacraments  was  evidently  intended  administrators 
of  Baptism  and  the  Holy  Communion;  and  in  the  latter  the 
use  of  the  very  words  of  Jesus  upon  which  the  whole  doc- 
trine of  the  priesthood  rests,  according  to  the  Papal  decision, 
namely,  *'Do  this  in  memory  (or  commemoration)  of  me," 
which  is  used  in  the  Anglican  ceremony  of  ordination  itself, 
in  connection  with  the  celebration  of  the  sacrament  of  the 
Eucharist.  Surely  the  words  of  our  Lord  himself  are  more 
effective  of  grace  than  any  interpretation  or  paraphrase 
of  these  words  whether  in  the  Roman  Ordinal  or  any  other. 

By  this  larger  view  of  the  Christian  ministry,  the  depression 
of  the  priesthood  from  being  the  one  essential  thing  and  the 
elevation  of  prophecy  to  its  Biblical  importance,  the 
Anglican  Ordinal  is  much  more  in  accord  with  the  Holy 
Scripture  and  primitive  usage  than  the  Roman;  and  there- 
fore the  Anglican  ministry  is  nearer  to  the  mind  of  Jesus 
and  his  apostles  than  the  Papal  intention. 

(d)  A  still  higher  question  remains,  and  that  is  of  vast 
importance  for  the  whole  Christian  world — namely,  whether 
it  may  not  be  possible  to  comprehend  the  Roman  conception 
of  priesthood  and  sacrifice  with  the  Anglican  conception,  and 
all  other  conceptions,  in  some  more  comprehensive  concep- 
tion. Such  a  comprehensive  conception  has  not  yet  been 
conceived,  but  it  is  possible  that  the  time  may  come,  in  a 
new  Reformation  of  the  Church,  when  it  may  be  conceived 
and  commonly  accepted  as  the  solution  of  all  the  great  prob- 
lems which  centre  about  that  most  essential  institution  of 
our  holy  religion,  the  Holy  Communion  in  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  our  Lord.  It  is  a  distinct  gain  that  the  attention 
of  the  world  is  again  called  to  this  supreme  question,  and 
that  the  question  of  sacrifice  is  made  the  central  one  in  con- 
nection with  the  Reunion  of  Christendom.  Theologians 
of  all  Christian  communions  should  give  it  more  profound 


120  CHURCH  UNITY 

consideration  with  mutual  charity  and  Christian  love,  seek- 
ing to  contribute  to  that  solution  of  all  our  difficulties  which 
in  the  order  of  Providence,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Divine 
Spirit,  will  at  last  be  made.  The  Pope  must  recede  from  the 
too  great  precision  in  the  definition  of  priesthood  and  sacri- 
fice, as  the  Anglican  Archbishops  rightly  contend,  for  such 
precision  undermines  and  destroys  the  validity  of  the  prim- 
itive ministry  of  the  Church,  the  Roman  no  less  than  others. 
(5)  This  question  in  debate  between  the  Pope  and  the 
Anglican  Archbishops  is  of  interest  to  all  Christian  commun- 
ions. Many  Anglicans  have  been  too  arrogant  in  their 
claims  as  to  the  validity  and  superiority  of  their  ordination 
over  other  Protestant  communions.  They  will  doubtless 
continue  to  set  a  high  value  upon  their  ordination.  But  they 
have  received  another  and  a  very  wholesome  lesson,  that  in 
the  eyes  of  all  the  rest  of  the  Christian  world,  the  ordination 
of  the  Church  of  England  is  of  no  more  validity  than  that  of 
the  other  national  Churches  of  the  Reformation.  The  other 
national  Churches  base  their  ecclesiastical  right  upon  an 
appeal  from  the  Pope  to  Jesus  Christ.  The  Anglican 
reformers  agreed  with  the  other  Reformers  in  this  particular. 
It  would  be  wholesome  if  the  Church  of  England  would  return 
to  the  principles  of  its  own  Reformers.  Protestant  orders 
all  rest  firmly  on  the  ground  of  the  right  of  reformation  and 
revolution.  History  justifies  that  right.  When  the  time 
of  the  greater  Reformation  comes,  the  Roman  Church  will 
recognise  the  right  of  the  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, and  then,  and  then  only,  will  the  mutual  recognition 
of  orders  take  place  in  a  reunited  and  reconstructed  Chris- 
tianity. 

It  was  my  privilege  to  spend  a  winter  in  Rome  soon  after 
these  documents  of  the  Pope  and  the  Anglican  Archbishops 
were  published.  I  found  that  there  were  still  able  Roman 
Catholic  scholars  who  were  not  convinced  by  the  Papal 
decision.  An  eminent  archbishop  said  to  me  that  whether 
the  Anglican  Ordinal  intended  to  ordain  priests  to  offer 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  121 

sacrifices  or  not,  the  intention  certainly  was  to  ordain  a 
Christian  priesthood,  such  as  they  supposed  Christ  and 
his  apostles  proposed.  This  is  a  sound  position  which  the 
Anglican  Archbishops  should  have  made  much  of.  A  mem- 
ber of  the  Papal  commission  gave  me  the  privately  printed 
Brevis  Conspectus  Ritiuilium  Ordinationum  in  Oriente  et 
Occidente  adhibitorum  quoad  formam  consecratoriam  cum 
manuum  impositione  conjunctam.  This  gives  eight  different 
ordinals,  the  Roman,  the  Gallican,  the  Greek,  the  Maronite, 
the  Alexandrian  Jacobite,  the  Armenian,  the  Nestorian,  that 
of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  and  of  the  Syrian  Jacobites. 
These  all  designate  the  office  to  which  the  candidate  was 
ordained.  I  said  to  this  theologian  at  the  time,  "Suppose  a 
more  ancient  Ordinal  should  be  discovered,  omitting  mention 
of  oflSce,  what  could  you  say  ?*'  He  was  confident  that  such 
a  discovery  would  not  be  made.  And  yet  the  Ordinal  of 
Sarapion  was  discovered  and  published  by  Wobbermin  and 
then  by  Wordsworth  in  1899,  having  just  this  omission,  the 
significance  of  which  has  been  well  discussed  by  the  Bishop 
of  Salisbury. 

There  have  been  not  a  few  Roman  Catholics  who  have 
urged  that  this  decision  of  the  Pope  as  to  Anglican  Orders 
must  be  regarded  as  final  and  infallible.  But  Pope  Pius  X 
assured  me  in  a  private  interview  that  this  decision  of  his 
predecessor  as  to  Anglican  Orders  cannot  be  brought  under 
the  category  of  infallible  decisions.  The  Pope  is  certainly 
correct,  and  he  is  sustained  by  the  best  Roman  Catholic 
canonists,  and  by  the  definition  of  Infallibility  of  the  Vatican 
decree,  which  covers  only  doctrines  of  faith  and  morals  and 
not  questions  of  government  and  discipline. 

The  decision  of  Pope  Leo  XIII  as  to  the  validity  of  the 
Anglican  Orders  has  lifted  the  whole  question  of  orders  into 
a  better  position  for  further  investigation.  The  essence  of  the 
question  was  whether  the  Anglican  Reformers  in  their 
Ordinal  had  the  intention  of  ordaining  a  real  priesthood  to 
offer  real  sacrifices.     The  decision  that  such  was  not  their 


122  CHURCH  UNITY 

intention  seems  one  that  all  should  recognise  as  final.  But 
the  question  still  remains  whether  such  an  intention  is  es- 
sential to  a  valid  Christian  ministry;  and  so  the  question 
becomes  one  of  doctrine — namely,  what  are  the  essential 
qualifications  of  the  Christian  ministry. 

There  are  several  important  functions  of  the  holy  ministry. 
The  Sarum  Ordinal,  on  which  the  Anglican  Ordinal  is  based, 
mentions  as  the  functions  of  a  priest  "Offerre,  benedicere, 
pra^esse,  praedicare,  conficere  et  baptizare";  but  no  one  con- 
tends that  it  is  necessary  to  mention  all  these  in  the  ceremony 
of  ordination.  The  practical  question  is  whether  the  omis- 
sion of  the  sacrificial  function  from  the  intention  of  the  Ordinal 
invalidates  it.  That  question  must  be  answered  in  the 
negative.  The  ancient  Ordinal  of  Sarapion  makes  just  this 
omission,  and  it  has  not  yet  been  shown  that  a  presbyter 
cannot  be  a  presbyter  unless  he  be  a  sacrificing  priest. 

Furthermore,  while  it  is  true  that  the  Anglican  Reformers 
removed  from  the  Sarum  Ordinal  what  they  supposed  was 
the  Roman  conception  of  priesthood,  and  did  not  substitute 
for  it  the  ancient  Catholic  conception,  there  is  no  evidence 
that  they  designed  to  exclude  the  latter.  They  were  in  a 
position  in  which  such  discrimination  was  impracticable. 
In  their  retention  of  so  much  of  the  ancient  formula  as  they 
did,  in  their  work  of  reform,  they  showed  the  intention  to 
perpetuate  the  pre-Reformation  ministry  in  all  that  they 
regarded  as  essential  to  it.  Their  intention  was  certainly 
to  ordain  and  perpetuate  the  ministry  which  Jesus  Christ  in- 
stituted, which  his  apostles  ordained  and  which  the  primitive 
Church  transmitted.  Their  purpose  in  reform  was  simply  and 
alone  to  remove  the  corruptions  of  the  Mediaeval  Church. 
If  now,  in  the  removal  of  corruptions,  they  also  removed 
many  things  that  were  not  Qorruptions,  belonging  to  the 
genuine  Christian  inheritance,  their  intention  was  changed  in 
a  measure  from  that  of  the  pre-Reformation  Church,  but  only 
so  as  to  do  exactly  what  they  supposed  Jesus  and  his  apostles 
would  have  them  do.  They  intended  the  Master's  intention, 
the  apostles'  intention,  the  intention  of  the  primitive  Church, 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  123 

even  if  they  were  mistaken,  even  if  one  could  say  wofully 
mistaken,  in  the  contents  of  their  intention.  If,  then,  they 
omitted  from  their  Ordinal  the  mention  of  such  an  important 
thing  as  the  sacrificial  character  of  the  priesthood,  that  does 
not  destroy  their  intention  to  ordain  a  ministry  with  all  that 
Jesus  Christ  intended  it  to  have. 

A  very  strong  argument  against  the  validity  of  Anglican 
Orders  was  made  by  Estcourt  in  1873.^  He  gives  a  large  num- 
ber of  valuable  documents,  and  considers  the  whole  question 
with  great  thoroughness.  As  the  Pope's  decision  makes  the 
whole  case  depend  upon  the  intention  of  the  Anglican  Ordinal 
to  ordain  a  real  sacrificing  priesthood,  Estcourt  carries  the 
discussion  as  to  the  conferring  of  the  grace  of  priesthood  a 
little  deeper.     He  says: 

After  this  full  examination  of  the  Anglican  rite,  we  are  driven  to 
the  conclusion,  that  it  contains  and  is  founded  upon  the  Lutheran 
doctrine,  namely,  that  Ordination  is  only  a  public  recognition  and  ad- 
mission of  a  person  to  an  office,  with  prayers  that  he  may  have  grace 
to  be  faithful  to  the  duty  imposed  upon  him,  and  to  live  in  a  manner 
consistent  with  the  same;  and  thus  it  excludes  the  idea  of  a  sacrament, 
or  of  any  sacramental  grace  conferred  therein.  Hence  arises  the  very 
grave  doubt,  whether  the  sacrament  of  Holy  Order  can  be  validly 
administered  with  such  a  form.    (P.  233.) 

Here  the  whole  question  is  summed  up  in  whether  Order 
is  a  sacrament,  conveying  sacramental  grace.  It  is  certainly 
true  that  the  Anglican  Reformers  agreed  with  the  Lutheran 
and  Reformed  in  excluding  Order  from  the  same  class  of 
sacraments  as  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  in  that 
sense  would  deny  that  Order  conveyed  sacramental  grace  in 
the  sense  that  Baptism  and  the  Eucharist  do.  But  it  is  not 
true  that  any  of  these  Reformed  Churches  denied  the  presence 
and  impartation  of  divine  grace  in  the  bestowal  of  Order. 
And  they  did  not  conceive  of  that  grace  as  merely  the  same 
kind  of  grace  that  an  abbot  would  receive  with  the  laying  on 
of  hands,  or  the  "  admission  of  a  person  to  an  office  with  pray- 
ers that  he  may  have  grace  to  be  faithful  to  the  duty  imposed 

*  The  Question  of  Anglican  Orders  Discussed. 


124  CHURCH  UNITY 

upon  him."  They  conceived  of  that  graxje  as  ministerial 
grace  for  the  ministry  instituted  by  Jesus  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  and  transmitted  in  valid  succession  by  the  laying 
on  of  hands. 

The  Edwardine  Ordinal,  indeed,  uses  one  of  the  three 
chief  apostolic  commissions,  the  one  given  by  the  Gospel  of 
John,  in  the  very  words  of  our  Lord  ^  himself.  If  the  words 
of  Commission  of  our  I^rd  are  not  an  effective  form  of 
grace,  what  can  be?  Thus  the  Anglican  Archbishops  in 
their  Response  to  Leo  XIII  say: 

The  form  of  ordering  a  Presbyter  employed  among  us  in  1550  and 
afterwards  was  equally  appropriate.  For  after  the  end  of  the  Eu- 
charistic  prayer,  which  recalls  our  minds  to  the  institution  of  our  Lord, 
there  followed  the  laying  on  of  hands  by  the  Bishop  with  the  assistant 
priests,  to  which  is  joined  the  "imperative"  form,  taken  from  the  Pon- 
tifical, but  at  the  same  time  fuller  and  more  solemn.  For  after  the 
words  "  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost "  there  immediately  followed,  as  in  the 
modem  Pontifical  (though  the  Pope  strangely  omits  to  mention  it), 
"Whose  sins  thou  dost  forgive,  they  are  forgiven;  and  whose  sins 
thou  dost  retain,  they  are  retained,"  and  then  the  words  from  the  Gos- 
pel (St.  Luke  xii.  42)  and  St.  Paul  (I  Cor.  iv.  1),  which  were  very 
rightfully  added  by  our  fathers,  "and  be  thou  a  faithful  Dispenser  of 
the  word  of  God,  and  of  His  holy  Sacraments;  in  the  Name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  This  form  is  suitable 
to  no  other  ministry  of  the  Church  but  that  of  a  priest,  who  has  what  is 
called  the  power  of  the  keys,  and  who  alone  with  full  right  dispenses  the 
word  and  mysteries  of  God  to  the  people,  whether  he  remain  a  Presby- 
ter or  be  advanced  to  higher  duties  as  Bishop.    (P.  27.) 

This  is  the  best  word  in  the  Archbishops'  Response,  and 
they  should  have  made  more  of  it.  The  use  of  one  of  the 
principal  apostolic  commissions  of  our  Lord  in  the  ordain- 
ing of  a  priest  should  be  regarded  as  a  valid  and  effective 
form.  Did  not  the  author  of  the  Gospel  of  John  so  regard 
it?  If  this  is  not  an  apostolic  commission,  where  else  will 
we  get  it  in  the  Gospel  of  John  ?  This  commission  mentions 
no  office,  and  the  Edwardine  Ordinal  simply  follows  it  in  this 
respect.     If  the  Edwardine  Ordinal  is  defective  in  this  re- 

» John  XX.  22-23. 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  125 

gard,  so  were  the  words  of  our  Lord.  If  the  words  of  Jesus 
imply  the  office  of  priesthood,  then  the  Ordinal  when  it  uses 
them  implies  just  the  same,  and  they  are  just  as  effective  for 
the  successors  of  the  apostles  as  they  were  for  the  apostles 
themselves. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Bishops  of  England,  in  their  Vindi- 
catioiiy  endeavour  to  meet  this  issue,  but  in  vain.  They 
venture  to  say : 

"And  it  has  been  claimed  that  these  further  addresses  to  the  candi- 
dates furnish  the  necessary  determination  of  the  meaning,  and  should 
have  been  taken  into  account  by  the  Bull.  But  to  remit  sins  is  not  to 
offer  sacrifice,  nor,  although  the  sacrifice  is  intimately  connected  with 
one  of  the  sacraments,  do  the  words,  **  Be  thou  a  faithful  dispenser  .  .  . 
of  His  holy  Sacraments  "  draw  special  attention  to  that  particular 
sacrament,  still  less  bring  into  prominence  its  sacrificial  aspect.  Nor 
does  it  avail  to  say  that  the  Lord  used  these  words  to  confer  the  priest- 
hood, and  that  therefore  they  must  have  been  suflScient  for  the  purpose. 
For  it  is  not  true  that  our  Lord  conferred  the  priesthood  by  the  use  of 
these  words.  He  had  conferred  the  priesthood  on  His  apostles  at  His 
Last  Supper  by  the  words:  "  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me  "  (c/.  Council 
of  Trent,  Sess.  xxii,  cap.  ix.,  can.  2).  What  he  did  on  Easter  evening 
by  the  words  "  whose  sins  you  shall  forgive  "  was  to  annex  to  the  priest- 
hood the  supplementary  power  of  forgiving  sins,  or  possibly  only  to 
indicate  that  it  had  been  annexed  already.    (P.  36.) 

This  argumentation  is  nothing  less  than  a  perversion  of 
Holy  Scripture,  which  does  not  justify  the  opinion  that  Jesus 
conferred  the  priesthood  at  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  that  the 
other  commissions  of  the  apostles  reported  in  the  Gospels 
are  supplementary  thereto.  These  other  commissions  are 
much  better  sustained  by  Biblical  criticism  than  the  words 
upon  which  the  priestly  commission  is  supposed  to  be  based. 
All  of  the  evangelists  agree  in  a  commission  given  by  our 
Lord  to  his  apostles  after  his  resurrection,  before  his  final 
departure  from  them.^  These  vary  in  their  terms,  but  agree 
in  substance.  And  these  must  be  regarded,  from  a  Biblical 
point  of  view,  as  the  real,  essential  and  final  commission. 

*Matt.  xxviii.  16-20;  Mk.  xvi.  14-20;  Lk.  xxiv.  44-53;  John  xx. 
19-23. 


126  CHURCH  UNITY 

The  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  reported  by  only 
three  of  the  evangelists,  and  these  make  no  mention  what- 
ever of  the  words,  "Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me";  and 
the  later  text  of  Luke,  which  gives  it,  was  derived  from  St. 
Paul.  It  is  impossible,  therefore,  to  suppose  that  the  Gos- 
pels understood  that  to  be  the  Apostolic  Commission.  What 
they  understood  to  be  the  Apostolic  Commission  they  give, 
all  four  of  them,  among  the  last  words  of  Jesus  to  his  apos- 
tles. 

It  may  also  be  said  that  St.  Paul  himself  was  commissioned 
by  our  Lord  in  Christophanies  as  the  great  apostle  to  the 
Gentiles.  We  have  several  reports  of  his  commission  in 
Acts  ;^  and  in  the  Pauline  Epistles,^  upon  which  St.  Paul  bases 
his  apostleship,^  and  in  not  one  of  them  is  there  the  slightest 
hint  of  the  performance  of  priestly  acts ;  but  there  is  the  same 
emphasis  upon  a  prophetic  ministry  as  in  the  apostolic  com- 
missions. And  yet  St.  Paul  was  certainly  a  priest  as  well  as  a 
prophet,  and  upon  his  statement*  rests  the  whole  fabric  of 
the  Papal  opinion,  that  the  essential  ministerial  function  is 
the  offering  of  the  real  sacrifice  of  the  Eucharist,  without 
which  there  is  no  valid  ministry. 

The  Roman  Catholic  tradition  singles  out  one  of  the  apos- 
tolic commissions,  and  that  one  only  incidental  to  the  insti- 
tution of  the  Eucharist,  and  the  one  not  contained  in  the 
original  report  of  the  institution  of  the  Eucharist  given  by  the 
Synoptic  Gospels,  but  given  only  in  St.  Paul's  report,  and  one, 
not  so  much  a  commission  to  the  apostles,  as  a  command  to 
do  the  one  thing,  celebrate  the  Eucharist.  It  singles  out  one 
thing,  and  makes  that  so  essential  to  the  Christian  ministry 
that  without  it  there  can  be  no  ministry  at  all. 

There  is  no  warrant  in  Holy  Scripture,  or  in  primitive 
Tradition,  for  such  an  exaggeration  of  priesthood  in  con- 
nection with  the  sacred  Eucharist  above  all  other  functions 
of  the  Christian  ministry,  and  other  priestly  acts;  and  there- 

» Acts  ix.  3-18;  xxii.  6-21;  xxvi.  12-18. 

'Gal.  i.  5-17;  I  Cor.  ix.  1;  II  Cor.  xi.  6;    xii.  11-12. 

=»  CJ.  Messiah  of  the  Apostles,  pp.  70  se^.  *  I  Cor.  xj. 


THE  VALIDITY   OF   ORDERS  127 

fore  the  Pope's  test  of  the  validity  of  Anglican  Orders  is  no 
valid  test.  The  Anglican  Ordinal  ordains  priests  with  the 
use  of  one  of  Christ's  own  commissions,  and  supplements  it 
with  words  which  in  Biblical  usage  imply  priestly  and 
prophetic  functions;  and  that  is  a  sufficient  and  effective 
form,  implying  all  that  Christ  would  have  his  priests  to  be. 

IV.    THE  VALIDITY  OF  PRESBYTERIAN  ORDERS 

The  Reformation  of  the  Church  in  the  several  countries 
of  Northern  Europe  resulted  in  the  organisation  of  national 
Churches.  This  was  inevitable  because  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Pope,  who  refused  the  reformation  demanded,  could 
no  longer  be  recognised  without  betrayal  of  the  cause  of 
reform.  The  Church  of  England  was  able  to  become  a 
reformed  national  Church,  with  her  bishops  at  her  head,  be- 
cause the  Crown  was  sustained  by  an  able  primate  and  re- 
forming bishops.  This  was  not  the  case  on  the  Continent 
of  Europe,  where  few  of  the  bishops  took  part  in  the  Reforma- 
tion, and  these  for  political  reasons  were  deprived  of  their 
jurisdiction  by  the  enemies  of  the  Reformation.  It  was 
more  the  difference  of  circumstances,  than  the  deliberate 
opinion  and  intention  of  the  Reformers,  that  resulted  in 
Episcopacy  in  England  and  Presbyterianism  in  various 
forms  on  the  Continent.  And  so  Episcopal  ordination  con- 
tinued in  England,  but  became  practically  impossible  on 
the  Continent,  where  Presbyterial  ordination  became  neces- 
sary. The  Anglican  episcopal  succession  depends  on  a  very 
slender  thread.  Not  one  of  the  four  bishops  who  consecrated 
Archbishop  Parker  had  jurisdiction  in  any  of  the  historic 
sees.  They  received  their  jurisdiction  from  the  Crown. 
Queen  Mary  died  in  1558,  only  forty-two  years  of  age.  Her 
sister  lived  to  her  seventieth  year.  If  Mary  had  lived  twelve 
years  longer,  only  one  of  Parker's  consecrators  would  have 
been  living,  and  in  all  human  probability  it  would  have 
been  quite  impossible  to  secure  a  sufficient  number  of  bishops 
to  consecrate  a  bishop  independent  of  Rome.     If  England 


128  CHURCH  UNITY 

had  been  called  upon  to  choose  between  a  Reformation  with- 
out bishops  or  bishops  without  Reformation,  can  we  think 
she  would  have  chosen  the  latter? 

The  situation  on  the  Continent  was  somewhat  different. 
Hermann,  Archbishop  of  Cologne  and  Elector  of  the  Empire, 
a  man  of  greater  eminence  and  nobler  Christian  character 
than  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  began  the  reform  of  his 
diocese  in  1536.  In  1542-3,  with  the  aid  of  Bucer  and 
Melancthon,  representing  the  two  sides  of  the  Reformation 
on  the  Continent,  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed,  he  became 
a  champion  of  the  Reformation  and  was  followed  by  the 
Bishop  of  Munster  and  others.  But  the  German  Emperor, 
by  force  of  arms,  deprived  him  of  his  electorate  and  arch- 
bishopric and  destroyed  the  Reformation  in  his  Electorate. 
If  Maurice  of  Saxony  had  thought  more  of  his  religion  and 
less  of  his  personal  animosities,  and  had  led  the  Protestants 
against  the  Emperor  at  this  time,  instead  of  five  years  later, 
the  Archbishop  of  Cologne  would  in  all  probability  have 
been  the  great  leader  and  mediator  of  the  Reformation  on  the 
Continent. 

It  was,  indeed,  the  providential  interference  of  God  in 
cutting  short  the  life  of  Queen  Mary,  and  postponing  the 
Protestant  rally  about  Duke  Maurice,  and  not  the  deliberate 
choice  of  the  Reformers,  that  made  the  Church  of  England 
Episcopal  and  the  Churches  of  the  Continent  non-Episcopal. 
The  situation  might  have  been  the  very  reverse. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  is  altogether  unhistorical 
and  unbecoming  for  the  Anglicans  to  exalt  themselves  above 
their  Protestant  brethren  on  the  Continent,  as  if  they  alone 
had  the  true  Apostolic  Ministry.  It  was  due  to  the  short 
life  of  Queen  Mary  and  the  long  life  of  Queen  Elizabeth 
that  England  was  saved  from  the  religious  wars  that  for  a 
generation  devastated  the  Continent,  and  out  of  which  the 
Protestant  Churches  emerged  in  feebleness  and  poverty  to 
do  the  best  they  could  under  the  circumstances. 

Presbyterian  Orders  were  accepted  as  valid  by  the  Anglican 
Reformers.     Bucer  and  Peter  Martyr  were  received  from 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  129 

the  Continent  and  made  professors  of  theology  at  Oxford 
and  Cambridge,  and  no  one  thought  of  questioning  their 
Orders.  All  through  the  sixteenth  century  and  the  first  half 
of  the  seventeenth  century  there  was  good-fellowship  between 
the  Anglicans  and  the  Protestants  of  the  Continent,  even 
though  the  Puritans  during  the  reigns  of  Elizabeth  and 
James  I  were  ever  striving  to  make  the  Church  of  England 
more  conformable  to  the  Churches  of  the  Continent  in  her 
ministry  and  her  ceremonies.  The  Puritans  were  Presby- 
terians in  their  doctrine  of  church  government,  and  they  strove 
to  put  their  doctrines  into  practice.  They  succeeded  in 
Scotland  under  the  leadership  of  Knox,  but  they  failed  in 
England.  And  yet  neither  in  Scotland  nor  in  England  nor 
in  Ireland  did  either  party  think  of  dividing  the  Church  be- 
cause of  these  differences.  It  was  a  conflict  between  a  re- 
forming and  a  conservative  party  in  the  same  Church. 

It  was  the  well-nigh  universal  opinion  of  the  leading  divines 
of  the  Church  of  England  in  the  sixteenth  and  the  first  half  of 
the  seventeenth  centuries  that  Presbyterian  Orders  were  valid, 
even  in  the  very  time  of  conflict  between  Episcopacy  and 
Presbyterianism  in  England,  Scotland  and  Ireland.  Thus 
Hooker,  the  chief  Anglican  authority  on  the  Church,  over 
against  Cartwright,  the  contemporary  Puritan  authority, 
says  in  1593: 

There  may  be  sometimes  very  just  and  suflScient  reasons  to  allow 
ordination  made  without  a  bishop.  The  whole  Church  visible,  being 
the  true  original  subject  of  all  power,  it  hath  not  ordinarily  allowed  any 
other  than  bishops  alone  to  ordain;  how  be  it,  as  the  ordinary  cause  is 
ordinarily  in  all  things  to  be  observed,  so  it  may  be  in  some  cases  not 
unnecessary  that  we  decline  from  the  ordinary  ways. 

Where  the  Church  must  needs  have  some  ordained,  and  neither 
hath,  nor  can  have,  possibly  a  bishop  to  ordain;  in  case  of  such  neces- 
sity, the  ordinary  institution  of  God  hath  given  oftentimes  and  may  give 
place.  And  therefore  we  are  not  simply  without  exception  to  urge  a 
lineal  descent  of  power  from  the  apostles  by  continued  succession  of 
bishops  in  every  effectual  ordination.     {Ecclesiastical  Polity,  VII,  14.) 

Richard  Field,  in  1606,  in  his  great  work.  Of  the  Churchy 
Four  Books — in  two  different  passages  makes  an  able  and 


130  CHURCH  UNITY 

thorough  defence  of  Presbyterian  Orders.  In  1610  the 
fifth  book  was  pubUshed  with  appendix  defending  former 
books  giving  a  third  statement  to  the  same  effect.  The 
whole  was  pubHshed  again  in  1628,  and  reprinted  for  the 
Ecclesiastical  Historical  Society,  1847-1853.  It  will  be 
suflBcient  to  quote  the  following: 

For  if  the  power  of  order  and  authority  to  intermeddle  in  things 
pertaining  to  God's  service  be  the  same  in  all  presbyters,  and  that  they 
be  limited  in  the  execution  of  it  only  for  Orders'  sake,  so  that  in  case  of 
necessity  every  one  of  them  may  baptize,  and  confirm  them  whom  they 
have  baptized,  absolve  and  reconcile  penitents,  and  do  all  those  other 
acts  which  regularly  are  appropriated  unto  the  bishop  alone;  there  is 
no  reason  to  be  given,  but  that  in  case  of  necessity,  wherein  all  bishops 
were  extinguished  by  death,  or  being  fallen  into  heresy,  should  refuse 
to  ordain  any  to  serve  God  in  His  true  worship,  but  that  presbyters, 
as  they  may  do  all  other  acts,  whatsoever  special  challenge,  bishops 
in  ordinary  course  make  upon  them,  might  do  this  also.  Who  then 
dare  condemn  all  those  worthy  ministers  of  God  that  were  ordained  by 
presbyters,  in  sundry  Churches  of  the  world,  at  such  times  as  bishops,  in 
those  parts  where  they  lived,  opposed  themselves  against  the  truth  of 
God,  and  persecuted  such  as  professed  it?  Surely  the  best  learned  in 
the  Church  of  Rome  in  former  times  durst  not  pronounce  all  ordina- 
tions of  this  nature  to  be  void.  For  not  only  Armachanus  {Lib.  xi.  9. 
Armenorum,  cap.  7),  a  very  learned  and  worthy  bishop,  but  as  it  appear- 
eth  by  Alexander  of  Hales,  many  learned  men  in  his  time  and  before 
were  of  opinion  that  in  some  cases,  and  in  some  times,  presbyters  may 
give  Orders,  and  that  their  ordinations  are  of  force,  though  to  do  so — 
not  being  urged  by  extreme  necessity — cannot  be  excused  from  over  great 
boldness  and  presumption.  Neither  should  it  seem  so  strange  to  our 
adversaries,  that  the  power  of  ordination  should  at  some  times  be  yielded 
unto  presbyters,  seeing  their  chorepiscopi,  suffragans  and  titular 
bishops,  that  live  in  the  diocese  and  churches  of  other  bishops,  and  are 
no  bishops,  according  to  the  old  course  of  discipline,  do  daily,  in  the 
Romish  Church,  both  conjfirm  children  and  give  Orders.  (Bk.  III., 
chap,  xxxix.) 

Francis  Mason  wrote  a  treatise  upon  The  Validity  of  the 
Ordination  of  the  Ministers  of  the  Reformed  Churches  beyond 
the  Seas,  Maintained  against  the  Romanists,  as  an  appendix 
to  his  work:  Vindicice  EcclesicB  AnglicancB.  The  work  itself 
was  published  after  his  death  by  desire  of  Archbishop  Abbot 


THE  VALIDITY   OF   ORDERS  131 

in  1625,  and  again  in  1638.  But  this  vindication  of  Presby- 
terian Orders  was  not  published  until  1641,  when  it  was 
issued  with  a  brief  declaration  of  the  several  forms  of  govern- 
ment of  the  Continental  Protestant  Churches,  by  John 
Dury,  the  great  peacemaker  of  the  age.  In  this  thorough 
vindication  of  Presbyterian  Orders,  at  the  conclusion,  Mason 
says: 

Wherefore  seeing  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter  do  not  differ  in  order,  but 
only  in  pre-eminence  and  jurisdiction,  as  yourselves  [the  Roman  Catho- 
lics] acknowledge;  and  seeing  Calvin  and  Beza  had  the  order  of  priest- 
hood, which  is  the  highest  order  in  the  Church  of  God,  and  were  law- 
fully chosen,  the  one  after  the  other,  to  a  place  of  eminency  and  endued 
with  jurisdiction,  derived  unto  them  from  the  whole  Church  wherein 
they  lived;  you  cannot  with  reason  deny  them  the  substance  of  the 
Episcopal  office.  And  whereinsoever  their  discipline  is  defective,  we 
wish  them,  even  in  the  bowels  of  Christ  Jesus,  by  all  possible  means  to 
redress  and  reform  it;  and  to  conform  themselves  to  the  ancient  cus- 
tom of  the  Church  of  Christ,  which  hath  continued  from  the  apostles' 
time;  that  so  they  may  remove  all  opinion  of  singularity  and  stop  the 
mouth  of  malice  itself.  Thus  much  concerning  the  ministers  of  other 
reformed  Churches;  wherein  if  you  will  not  believe  us,  disputing  for 
the  lawfulness  of  their  calling;  yet  you  must  give  us  leave  to  believe 
God,  Himself  from  heaven  approving  their  ministry  by  pouring  down 
a  blessing  upon  their  labours. 

The  authenticity  of  this  volume  was  challenged  by  John 
Lindsay  in  the  introduction  to  his  edition  of  the  ViiidiccB 
in  1734,  but  on  insuflSicient  grounds.  The  only  reasons  he 
has  to  give  are,  that  it  was  not  published  with  the  work  itself 
in  1625,  and  that  it  does  not  agree  with  Mason's  opinions. 
But  in  this  latter  he  is  altogether  mistaken,  for  he  identifies 
Mason's  opinions  with  his  own,  and  so  misinterprets  him. 
Indeed,  the  authenticity  might  rather  be  questioned  if  Mason 
agreed  with  Lindsay;  for  Hooker,  Field  and  the  citation  given 
from  Mason  are  in  entire  accord,  and  these  represent  the 
common  Anglican  opinion  of  the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth 
century;  whereas  Lindsay  represents  the  common  Anglican 
opinion  after  the  Restoration  in  1662. 

In  1610  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  Orders  was  put  to  the 
test.     Three   Scottish   bishops   were   consecrated   by   three 


132  CHURCH  UNITY 

Anglican  bishops  under  the  authority  of  the  Crown,  and  the 
primate  of  England,  without  requiring  them  to  be  ordained 
as  priests,  they  having  received  Presbyterian  ordination  only. 
King  James  was  the  head  of  the  Church  of  England  by 
the  action  of  Parliament  and  Convocation  in  the  reign  of 
Henry  VIII.  He  now  assumed  the  same  relation  to  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  and  by  gradual  and  persistent  pressure 
compelled  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland  to  engraft 
bishops  as  permanent  moderators  with  superior  jurisdiction 
over  presbyteries  and  provincial  synods.  By  his  royal  com- 
mission he  required  the  Bishops  of  Ely,  Bath  and  Wells,  and 
Rochester  to  consecrate  the  Archbishop  of  Glasgow  and 
the  Bishops  of  Brechin  and  Galloway.  Previous  to  the 
consecration,  the  whole  situation  was  carefully  considered 
by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  the  bishops  of  his 
province.  Spottiswoode,  the  Archbishop  of  Glasgow,  then 
consecrated,  who  was  subsequently  transferred  to  St.  An- 
drews and  became  the  primate  of  Scotland,  tells  us  of  this 
discussion.  This  is  testimony  of  the  highest  value  by  a 
man  present  at  the  time,  who  was  himself  consecrated  by 
these  English  bishops,  and  who  thoroughly  understood  the 
state  of  opinion  in  England  and  Scotland,  and  who  as  an 
ecclesiastic  of  the  highest  rank  and  ability  could  not  have 
made  a  mistake  in  this  all-important  situation.  This  is  what 
Spottiswoode  tells  us: 

A  question  in  the  meantime  was  moved  by  Dr.  Andrews,  Bishop  of 
Ely,  touching  the  consecration  of  the  Scottish  bishops,  who,  as  he  said, 
"must  first  be  ordained  presbyters,  as  having  received  no  ordination 
from  a  bishop."  The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Dr.  Bancroft,  who 
was  by,  maintained  "  that  thereof  was  no  necessity,  seeing  where  bishops 
could  not  be  had,  the  ordination  given  by  the  presbyters  must  be  es- 
teemed lawful;  otherwise,  that  it  might  be  doubted  if  there  were  any 
valid  vocation  in  most  of  the  reformed  Churches."  This  applauded  to 
by  the  other  bishops,  Ely  acquiesced,  and  at  the  day  and  place  appointed 
the  three  Scottish  bishops  were  consecrated.  {History  of  the  Church 
of  Scotland,  Bk.  vii.) 

These  words  of  Archbishop  Bancroft  express  the  common 
opinion  of  his  time  among  the  Anglican  divines,  as  we  know 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  133 

from  the  writings  of  Hooker,  Richard  Field,  Mason,  his  con- 
temporaries, and  Joseph  Hall  and  other  Anglicans  a  little 
later,  before  the  civil  wars  divided  the  Christians  of  Great 
Britain  into  so  many  warring  factions.  They  also  suit  the 
situation  in  Scotland,  for  these  Scottish  bishops  after  their 
consecration  recognised  the  Presbyterian  Orders  of  their 
presbyters  and  in  no  instance  did  they  venture  upon  giving 
Episcopal  ordination  to  those  who  had  been  ordained  as  they 
themselves  had  been  by  presbyters  only.  There  should  be 
no  doubt,  therefore,  that  in  the  consecration  of  three  bishops 
for  Scotland  by  three  English  bishops  acting  under  the  au- 
thority of  the  Crown  and  the  Primate  of  All  England,  the 
Church  of  England  committed  itself  to  the  recognition  of 
the  validity  of  Presbyterian  Orders  and  only  attempted  to  add 
Episcopacy  to  Presbyterianism  so  far  as  Scotland  was  con- 
cerned. 

There  is,  however,  another  interpretation  of  this  consecra- 
tion which  has  come  down  as  a  tradition  in  a  large  number 
of  Anglican  writers  which  is  altogether  inconsistent  with  the 
statement  of  Spottiswoode.  These  statements  may  be  traced 
back  to  Heylyn,  whose  Mrius  Redivivus,  or  History  of  the 
Presbyterians  J  was  published  in  1670,  shortly  after  his  death. 
Heylyn  was  chaplain  to  both  Charles  I  and  Charles  II,  and 
a  violent  adherent  of  Archbishop  Laud  and  his  policy,  and 
a  fierce  and  unscrupulous  polemic  divine.  He  gives  an  ac- 
count of  the  circumstances  leading  up  to  the  consecration 
of  the  Scottish  bishops  and  then  goes  on  to  say : 

The  character  was  only  necessary  to  complete  the  work,  which 
could  not  be  imprinted  but  by  consecration  according  to  the  rules  and 
canons  of  the  primitive  times.  And  that  this  character  might  be  in- 
delibly imprinted  by  them,  His  Majesty  issued  a  commission  under  the 
Great  Seal  of  England  to  the  bishops  of  London,  Ely,  Wells  and  Roch- 
ester, whereby  they  were  required  to  proceed  with  the  consecration  of 
the  said  three  bishops,  according  to  the  rules  of  the  English  ordina- 
tion, which  was  by  them  performed  with  all  due  solemnity  in  the  chapel 
of  the  Bishop  of  London's  house,  near  the  church  of  St.  Paul,  October 
21st,  1610.  But  first  a  scruple  had  been  moved  by  the  Bishop  of  Ely 
concerning  the  capacity  of  the  persons  nominated  for  receiving  the  Epis- 


134  CHURCH  UNITY 

copal  consecration,  in  regard  that  none  of  them  had  formerly  been  or- 
dained priests;  which  scruple  was  removed  by  Archbishop  Bancroft^ 
alleging  that  there  was  no  such  necessity  of  receiving  the  orders  of  priest- 
hood, but  that  Episcopal  consecration  might  be  given  without  it,  as 
might  be  exemplified  in  the  cases  of  Ambrose  and  Nectarius,  of  which 
the  first  was  made  Archbishop  of  Milan  and  the  other  Patriarch  of  Con- 
stantinople, without  receiving  any  intermediate  Orders,  whether  of 
priest,  deacon,  or  any  other  (if  there  were  any  other),  at  that  time  in 
the  Church.     {Lib.  xi,  p.  382.) 

The  Anglican  tradition  since  Heylyn  builds  upon  him 
exclusively  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  determine.  Thomas 
Frere^  refers  to  Collier^  as  his  authority,  and  Collier  refers 
to  Heylyn.  Hook^  makes  the  same  statement  without  giving 
his  authority.  Perry^  refers  to  Spottiswoode,  Heylyn  and 
Collier,  but  follows  the  latter.  It  is,  indeed,  astonishing  that 
so  many  able  historians  should  neglect  the  testimony  of 
Spottiswoode  and  follow  Heylyn.  The  explanation  is  prob- 
ably that  Heylyn's  interpretation  seemed  to  them  the  only 
reasonable  one,  because  they  were  themselves  all  involved 
in  the  opinion  of  the  school  of  Laud,  that  the  Presbyterian 
Orders  of  Scotland  could  not  be  regarded  as  valid,  and  there- 
fore it  was  impossible  that  they  ever  could  have  been  so  re- 
garded by  English  bishops.  But  in  this  opinion  they  entirely 
ignore  the  opinions  of  the  greatest  Anglican  authorities  of 
the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century.  No  one  who  knows 
the  character,  ability  and  standing  of  the  two  men,  Spottis- 
woode and  Heylyn,  could  help  giving  the  palm  to  the  former 
in  the  case  of  conflicting  testimony,  especially  as  Spottiswoode 
knew  of  his  own  knowledge  the  facts  of  the  case,  whereas 
Heylyn  could  only  have  known  about  them  by  hearsay  or 
written  testimony.  He  mentions  no  authority  whatever. 
We  can  only  think,  therefore,  that  he  is  giving  a  hearsay  tra- 
dition without  attempting  to  verify  it;  and  his  testimony  is 
also  vitiated  by  the  fact  that  it  is  so  closely  attached  to  his 

*  History  of  the  English  Church  in  the  Reign  of  Elizabeth  and  James  I. 

*  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Great  Britain. 
'  Lives  of  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury. 

*  History  of  the  Church  of  England. 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  135 

theory  that  the  consecration  of  a  bishop  imprints  an  indel- 
^ible  character. 

I  do  not  mean  to  intimate  that  Heylyn  deliberately  changed 
the  story  to  suit  his  theory.  He  probably,  in  his  usual  care- 
less manner,  put  into  Archbishop  Bancroft's  mouth  words 
used  by  another,  and  omitted  the  real  words  that  the  Arch- 
bishop said  because  they  seemed  to  him  improbable.  We 
might  reasonably  have  made  this  conjecture  on  the  prin- 
ciples of  Historical  Criticism,  as  the  only  way  in  which  to  save 
the  veracity  of  the  man  at  the  expense  of  his  accuracy. 
But  indeed  we  have  evidence  that  such  was  really  the  case. 
Neale,  the  careful  and  usually  accurate  historian  of  the 
Puritans,  says: 

Andrews,  Bishop  of  Ely,  was  of  opinion  that  before  their  consecra- 
tion they  ought  to  be  made  priests,  because  they  had  not  been  ordained 
by  a  bishop.  This  the  Scots  divines  were  unwilling  to  admit,  through 
fear  of  the  consequence  among  their  own  countrymen;  for  what  must 
they  conclude  concerning  the  ministers  of  Scotland  if  their  own  ordina- 
tion as  presbyters  was  not  valid  ?  Bancroft  therefore  yielded,  that  where 
bishops  could  not  be  had,  ordination  by  presbyters  must  be  valid,  other- 
wise the  character  of  the  ministers  in  most  of  the  reformed  Churches 
might  be  questioned.  Abbot,  Bishop  of  London,  and  others  were  of 
opinion  that  there  was  no  necessity  of  passing  through  the  inferior 
orders  of  deacon  and  priest,  but  that  the  episcopal  character  might  be 
conveyed  at  once,  as  appears  from  the  examples  of  St.  Ambrose,  Nec- 
tarius,  Eucherius,  and  others,  who  from  mere  laymen  were  advanced 
at  once  into  the  episcopal  chair. 

This  on  the  face  of  it  seems  to  explain  the  discrepancy 
between  Spottiswoode  and  Heylyn.  Spottiswoode  gives  the 
words  of  the  Archbishop  because  they  were  the  only  im- 
portant ones  and  the  only  ones  which,  in  his  opinion,  had 
anything  to  do  with  the  consecration.  Heylyn  gives  the 
words  of  the  Bishop  of  London,  which  in  some  way  by  a  tra- 
dition which  had  come  to  him  were  transferred  to  the  Arch- 
bishop, the  words  of  the  Archbishop  himself  having  been  for- 
gotten. 

This  theory  of  Abbot,  the  Bishop  of  London,  that  a  lay- 
man might  be  made  a  bishop  ^er  saltum,  and  receive  by  such 


136  CHURCH  UNITY 

consecration  all  the  ministerial  orders  with  their  functions 
together  with  episcopal  jurisdiction,  seems  an  easier  way  ofc 
avoiding  the  recognition  of  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  ordi- 
nation than  it  really  is.    As  Neale  says: 

But  whether  this  supposition  does  not  rather  weaken  the  arguments 
for  bishops  being  a  distinct  order  from  presbyters,  I  leave  with  the  reader. 

The  great  Anglican  authority  on  the  Church,  Richard 
Field,  in  1606,  says  that 

all  the  best  learned  among  the  Romanists  agree  in  this  that  a  bishop 
ordained  fer  saltum,  that  never  had  the  ordination  of  a  presbyter,  can 
neither  consecrate  and  administer  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  body, 
nor  ordain  a  presbyter,  himself  being  none,  nor  do  any  act  peculiarly 
pertaining  to  presbyters. 

If  Field  and  these  Roman  canonists  are  correct  and  these 
three  Scottish  bishops  were  consecrated  fer  saltum,  as  so  many 
Anglican  writers,  following  Heylyn,  suppose,  then  their  con- 
secration by  the  other  Scottish  bishops  was  invalid,  and  their 
ordination  of  all  priests  of  the  Scottish  Church  was  also  in- 
valid, and  the  ministry  of  the  Episcopal  Church  of  Scotland 
were  put  in  a  far  worse  position  than  were  those  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  of  Scotland.  We  do  not  know  what  position 
the  Lambeth  Conference  of  1908  really  meant  to  take,  but 
they  say: 

In  so  far  as  these  precedents  involve  consecration  to  the  episcopate 
fer  saltum,  the  conditions  of  such  consecration  would  require  careful 
investigation  and  statement. 

This  looks  as  if  they  were  doubtful,  to  say  the  least,  that 
there  had  been  any  such  ordination  fer  saltum  in  1610.  I 
can  hardly  think  that  such  an  eminent  scholar  as  the  Bishop 
of  Salisbury,  who  so  distinctly  in  his  writings  recognises  the 
validity  of  Presbyterian  Orders,  and  who  is  the  best-informed 
scholar,  on  the  matter  of  the  history  of  Orders,  in  Great 
Britain,  could  give  any  such  interpretation  to  the  conse- 
cration of  1610. 

In  fact,  according  to  the  consensus  of  the  ancient  canonists. 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  137 

episcopal  consecration  is  not  strictly  an  ordination  at  all. 
It  bestows  order  only  in  the  sense  of  regimen  or  jurisdiction, 
not  in  the  sense  of  ministerial  character,  which  is  imparted 
in  the  ordination  to  the  priesthood,  and  cannot  be  imparted 
in  consecration  to  the  episcopate. 

These  words  probably  mean  to  be  a  caution  to  the  expla- 
nation of  the  consecration  of  1610  common  in  the  Anglican 
historians,  a  caution  which  they  should  take  to  heart  lest 
they  be  caught,  as  Neale  and  Field  suggest,  in  their  own  trap. 
They  certainly  will  fare  much  better,  both  as  historians  and 
churchmen,  if  they  abandon  this  false  conception  of  conse- 
cration fer  saltum  and  frankly  admit  the  historical  fact  that 
the  Church  of  England  did,  in  1610,  by  the  consecration  of 
these  presbyterially  ordained  Scotch  presbyters  as  bishops, 
in  fact  recognise  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  Orders,  as  did 
all  the  contemporary  Anglican  authorities.  If  that  consecra- 
tion is  to  be  a  real  precedent  they  will  follow  it  in  that  re- 
spect, and  so  open  the  door  to  the  reunion  of  British  Christi- 
anity. 

The  tradition  in  the  Church  of  England,  that  the  Scottish 
bishops  were  consecrated  per  saltum,  involves  a  great  peril 
to  the  validity  of  the  consecration,  for  it  would  be  against 
the  Canon  Law  of  the  Church.  It  is  quite  true  that  in  the 
early  Church,  bishops  were  ordained  per  saltum,  but  that 
was  before  the  difference  between  presbyter  and  bishop  had 
become  accentuated,  and  before  Order  had  taken  its  place 
among  the  sacraments.  In  these  early  ordinations,  the  ordi- 
nation was  really  to  the  priesthood,  for  there  was  no  special 
ceremony  of  consecration  for  the  bishop.  But  when  the  con- 
secration of  the  bishop  had  become  fixed  in  usage  as  a  sepa- 
rate ceremony,  the  ordination  of  a  bishop  per  saltum  was  pro- 
hibited, for  it  was  no  longer  an  ordination,  properly  so  called, 
bestowing  Order,  but  a  consecration  to  a  higher  jurisdiction. 
The  Roman  canonists  are  in  general  accord  on  this  question, 
and  they  sustain  the  position  taken  by  Richard  Field  in  1606. 

So  far  as  the  seven  orders  are  concerned  there  may  be  an 
ordination  persaltum,tha.t  is, the  ordination  to  the  higher  order 


138  CHURCH  UNITY 

involves  all  the  lower  orders.     But  this  is  not  the  case  with 
the  consecration  to  the  episcopate. .  As  Thomas  Aquinas  says : 

Sed  episcopalis  potest  dependet  a  sacerdotali;  qui  nullus  potest 
recipere  episcopalem  potestatem  nisi  pruis  habeat  sacerdotalem.  Ergo 
episcopatus  non  est  ordo.     {Qu.  40  a  5.) 

With  this  Roman  Catholic  canonists,  dogmatic  writers  and 
historians  generally  agree.     So  the  Jesuit  Billot  says: 

Non  est  similis  ratio  de  consecratione  episcopali  quae  omnino  nulla 
esset,  si  non  pre-existeret  character  sacerdotalis;  episcopatus  enim  non 
est  ordo  distinctus  a  sacerdotio  ut  jam  dictum  est,  et  infra  ex  professo 
declarabitur.     {De  Ecclesice  Sacramentis,  1900,  p.  268.) 

Therefore,  if  the  consecration  of  the  Scottish  bishops  was 
per  salturriy  it  was  null  and  void  so  far  as  giving  them  priest- 
hood is  concerned,  or  power  of  confirming  and  ordaining. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  English  bishops  reverted  to  the  more 
ancient  usage.  If  they  did  so,  they  must  take  the  conse- 
quences and  regard  bishops  and  priests  as  really  of  one  order, 
and  abandon  the  Anglo-Catholic  tradition  of  the  superiority 
of  the  bishop  in  ministerial  character. 

But  they  were  not  permitted  to  revert  to  the  ancient  usage. 
If  they  intended  to  consecrate  Scottish  bishops  per  saltum 
to  the  priesthood  as  well  as  the  episcopate,  they  had  no  au- 
thority to  have  such  an  intention,  and  there  is  no  sufficient 
evidence  that  they  had  it.  The  private  intention  of  the  con- 
secrators  amounts  to  nothing.  They  acted  as  the  servants 
of  the  Church  of  England  under  the  authority  of  the  Crown 
and  the  primate,  whose  opinion,  as  we  have  shown,  was  that 
Presbyterian  Orders  were  valid.  They  could  not  act  of  their 
own  sovereign  authority.  Their  intention  was  the  official  in- 
tention of  the  Church  of  England  as  expressed  in  the  Ordinal, 
and  any  other  intention  they  might  have  had  was  altogether 
invalid.  It  is  certain  that  the  Ordinal  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land had  no  intention  of  consecrating  bishops  per  saltum. 
The  Anglican  consecration  of  a  bishop  does  not  ordain  a 
priest.  The  form  omits  those  things  in  the  form  of  ordination 
of  a  priest  which  were  intended  to  confer  ministerial  character. 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  139 

and  therefore  cannot  confer  priesthood.  If  the  ordainers  of 
1610  intended  to  ordain  bishops  fer  saltum^  they  could  not 
possibly  have  done  so  by  the  use  of  the  Anglican  form  for 
consecration  of  bishops.  If  they  thought  they  could,  and 
tried  to  do  it,  they  utterly  failed,  and  their  action  was  null 
and  void. 

King  James,  in  1618,  sent  representatives  of  the  Church  of 
England  to  the  Synod  of  Dort.  They  took  part  in  the  de- 
liberations of  that  body,  thereby  recognising  the  Orders  of 
the  Presbyterian  ministers  from  all  sections  of  the  Reformed 
Churches  of  the  Continent. 

In  1638,  owing  to  the  aggressions  of  Archbishop  Laud 
and  King  Charles  II  upon  the  liberties  of  the  National  Church 
of  Scotland,  and  the  attempt  to  impose  upon  them  a  liturgy 
even  more  against  their  taste  than  that  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  de- 
posed all  the  Scottish  bishops  because  of  their  subserviency 
to  the  Crown  and  the  authority  of  a  foreign  episcopate. 

Bishop  Joseph  Hall,  in  his  denunciation  of  this  action  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  yet  at  the  same  time  recognises  the 
validity  of  the  Orders  of  the  Reformed  Churches  of  the  Con- 
tinent in  the  following  intense  language: 

Yea  if  the  last  bishop  of  Geneva  had  become  a  Protestant  and  con- 
sented in  matters  of  doctrine  to  Calvin,  Farel,  Viret,  have  you,  or  any 
man  living,  just  cause  to  think  that  the  citie  would  not  gladly  have  re- 
tained his  government  still  and  thought  themselves  happy  under  such 
a  protection  ?  Would  they  have  rejected  him  as  an  enemy  whom  they 
might  have  enjoyed  as  a  patron?  Would  they  have  stood  upon  his 
Episcopacie,  while  they  had  his  concurrence  in  the  truth  of  religion  ? 
No  man  that  hath  either  brains  or  forehead  will  affirm  it,  since  the  world 
knows  the  quarrel  was  not  at  its  dignitie,  but  at  his  opposition  to  in- 
tended Reformation.  .  .  .  Thus  those  learned  divines  and  Protestants 
of  Germany,  wherein  all  the  world  sees  the  Apologist  professeth  for 
them,  that  they  greatly  desired  to  conserve  the  government  of  bishops, 
that  they  were  altogether  unwillingly  driven  from  it;  that  it  was  utterly 
against  their  heart,  that  it  should  have  been  impaired  or  weakened; 
that  it  was  only  the  personal  cruelty  and  violence  of  the  Romish  perse- 
cutors in  a  bloody  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  which  was 
then  excepted  against.     {Episcopacy  by  Divine  Right,  1640,  pp.  7-12.) 


140  CHURCH  UNITY    . 

We  should  consider  the  historical  situation  when  the 
Churches  of  the  Reformation  were  separated  from  Rome 
and  compelled  to  become  national  churches. 

It  is  true  that  Joseph  Hall  would  not  bring  the  Noncon- 
formists of  England  and  the  Scottish  Presbyterians,  who  de- 
liberately deposed  their  bishops,  under  this  rule.  But  he 
was  blinded  by  the  conflict  in  which  he  was  engaged;  and 
the  Anglicans  since  his  time  have  too  often  wrapped  them- 
selves in  the  prejudices  bom  of  the  civil  wars  of  England  and 
the  bitter  ecclesiastical  controversies  that  continued  through 
the  whole  of  the  seventeenth  century. 

Bishop  Hall,  Archbishop  Laud,  and  the  Scottish  bishops 
who  were  deprived,  represented  prelatical  assumptions  and 
despotisms  that  would  not  be  tolerated  anywhere  in  the 
Anglican  world  at  the  present  time.  I  doubt  not  if  the  Ameri- 
can House  of  Bishops  were  composed  of  such  bishops,  and 
such  bishops  only,  the  American  Episcopalians  would  throw 
them  off  in  the  interests  of  freedom  of  conscience,  even  if 
they  had  to  get  on  without  any  bishops  at  all.  The  battle 
of  Nonconformity  and  of  Presbytery  was  not  so  much  against 
episcopacy  as  against  the  intolerable  yoke  of  prelacy.  There- 
fore, in  my  opinion.  Hooker's  principle  really  applies  to 
the  situation  in  England  and  Scotland  as  well  as  to  that  on 
the  Continent. 

At  the  restoration  of  Charles  II  in  1661,  only  one  bishop, 
Sydserf,  remained  to  the  Church  of  Scotland  of  those  de- 
posed in  1638.  In  order  to  restore  the  episcopate  to  Scotland, 
the  Crown  selected  four  men  to  be  consecrated  by  the  Eng- 
lish bishops.  Two  of  these,  Fairford  and  Hamilton,  had 
received  priests'  orders  under  the  old  episcopate,  and  their 
orders  were  accepted  by  the  consecrators  as  valid.  But 
Sharp  and  Leighton  had  received  their  ordination  as  pres- 
byters since  1638  by  the  laying  on  of  hands  of  the  presbytery. 
The  Bishop  of  London  insisted  that  these  two  must  be  made 
deacons  and  priests  before  they  could  be  consecrated  as 
bishops.  Sharp  remonstrated  and  pleaded  the  case  of  Arch- 
bishop Spottiswoode  and  those  who  had  been  consecrated 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  141 

with  him;  but  in  vain,  for  the  English  bishops  of  1661  would 
not  follow  the  precedent  of  1610.  Accordingly,  Sharp  and 
Leighton  were  ordained  deacons  and  priests  before  they 
were  consecrated  as  bishops.  Thus  the  Anglican  bishops 
of  1661  refused  to  recognise  the  validity  of  the  Presbyterian 
Orders  of  Scotland.  The  reason  for  this  change  of  opinion 
was  the  result  of  the  conflicts  and  civil  wars  that  raged  in 
Great  Britain  from  1641-1661. 
As  Burnet  says: 

But  the  late  war,  and  the  disputes  during  that  time,  had  raised 
these  controversies  higher,  and  brought  men  to  stricter  notions,  and  to 
maintain  them  with  more  fierceness.  The  English  Bishops  did  also  say, 
that  by  the  late  Act  of  Uniformity  that  matter  was  more  positively  settled 
than  it  had  been  before;  so  that  they  could  not  legally  consecrate 
any  but  those  who,  according  to  that  constitution,  were  made  first  priests 
and  deacons.  They  also  made  this  difference  between  the  present  time 
and  King  James;  for  then  the  Scots  were  only  in  an  imperfect  state, 
having  never  had  bishops  among  them  since  the  Reformation;  so  in 
such  a  state  of  things,  in  which  they  had  been  under  a  real  necessity, 
it  was  reasonable  to  allow  of  their  Orders,  how  defective  soever:  But 
that  of  late  they  had  been  in  a  state  of  schism,  had  revolted  from  their 
bishops,  and  had  thrown  off  that  Order,  so  that  orders  given  in  such 
wilful  opposition  to  the  whole  constitution  of  the  primitive  Church  was 
a  thing  of  another  nature.  They  were  positive  in  the  point  and  would 
not  dispense  with  it.  Sharp  stuck  more  at  it  than  could  have  been  ex- 
pected from  a  man  that  had  swallowed  down  greater  matters.  Leigh- 
ton  did  not  stand  much  upon  it.  He  did  not  think  orders  given  without 
bishops  were  null  and  void.  He  thought  the  forms  of  government  were 
not  settled  by  such  positive  laws  as  were  unalterable;  but  only  by 
apostolical  practices,  which,  as  he  thought,  authorized  episcopacy  as  the 
best  form.  Yet  he  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  the  being  of  a  church. 
But  he  thought  that  every  church  might  make  such  rules  of  ordination 
as  they  pleased,  and  that  they  might  reordain  all  that  came  to  them 
from  any  other  church;  and  that  reordaining  a  priest  ordained  in  another 
church  imparted  no  more,  but  that  they  received  him  according  to  their 
rules  and  did  not  infer  the  annulling  the  orders  he  had  formerly  re- 
ceived.    {History  of  His  Own  Time,  1724,  Vol.  I,  pp.  139-140.) 

As  Cunningham  says: 

James  had  attempted  to  engraft  episcopacy  upon  presbytery; 
Charles  attempted  to  eradicate  presbytery  altogether.     James  had  in- 


142  CHURCH  UNITY 

troduced  bishops  only  as  the  pennanent  moderators  of  presbyteries. 
Charles  now  interdicted  presbyteries  from  meeting  at  all,  till  they  should 
be  recognised  as  bishops'  courts.     {History  of  the  Church  of  Scotland.) 

This  was  the  spirit  of  the  Royalist  Party  and  of  the  Episco- 
pal Party  in  the  Church.  They  were  mad  against  Presby- 
terianism,  and  determined  to  destroy  it  altogether.  But 
this  inconsistency  between  the  action  of  the  English  bishops 
of  1610  and  of  1661  has  some  serious  consequences.  If 
Presbyterian  Orders  were  invalid  in  1661,  were  they  not 
equally  so  in  1610?  If  they  were  invalid  in  1610,  then  the 
Scottish  bishops  consecrated  at  that  time  had  no  power 
of  Order,  and  all  their  ordinations  were  invalid.  Then  the 
Orders  of  Sydserf,  Fairford  and  Hamilton  were  just  as 
invalid  as  those  of  Sharp  and  Leighton.  If  that  is  so,  then 
only  two  of  the  five  Scottish  bishops  of  1661  had  valid  Orders, 
and  these  depended  upon  the  right  of  the  Anglican  bishops 
to  consecrate  them,  under  the  sole  authority  of  the  Crown, 
and  against  the  wishes  of  the  National  Church  of  Scotland. 

It  is  one  of  the  revenges  of  history  that  a  Scottish  episco- 
pate, restarting  with  such  Low  Churchmen  as  those  of  1661, 
who  did  not  regard  their  episcopal  ordination  as  any  more 
than  a  necessary  ceremony,  not  adding  any  validity  to  their 
previous  Presbyterian  ordination,  should  have  given  birth 
to  such  high-fliers  as  the  Non-juring  bishops  who,  though 
unrecognised  by  the  Church  of  England,  thought  they  might 
yet  give  a  valid  episcopacy  to  the  American  people.  It  is 
not  difficult  to  understand  how  these  eccentric  notions  of 
the  episcopate  arose  among  the  Non-jurors;  but  it  is  difficult 
to  give  them  any  real  value  in  the  official  intention  of  the 
Scottish  Ordinal  or  in  the  historic  succession  of  the  Church. 

If  the  validity  of  Orders  is  to  be  tested  with  the  same  strict- 
ness as  the  Anglo-Catholics  are  wont  to  test  Presbyterian 
Orders,  then  surely  Presbyterian  Orders  have  much  stronger 
reasons  for  validity  than  such  mixed  Orders  as  exist  in  the 
Scottish  Episcopal  Church,  derived  partly  from  Presbyterian 
Orders  and  partly  from  a  foreign  Church  whose  right  to  im- 
part either  jurisdiction  or  functions  may  be  questioned,  ac- 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  143 

cording  to  the  Canon  Law,  and  especially  by  those  who  hold 
to  a  special  episcopal  character.  But  we  are  not,  in  fact, 
justified  in  going  so  far.  There  were  irregularities  enough, 
both  as  to  the  Orders  of  Episcopalians  and  Presbyterians, 
but  not  sufficient  in  either  case  to  impair  their  essential  va- 
lidity. 

The  Christian  ministry  depends  on  the  Apostolic  Com- 
mission given  by  Jesus  Christ  to  his  apostles  and  transmitted 
by  them  through  all  the  successive  generations  of  Christian 
ministers.  The  intention  of  Jesus  Christ  in  his  commission 
was  the  intention  of  his  apostles  when  they  ordained  the 
apostolic  ministry,  and  the  same  intention  has  been  in  the 
minds  of  all  their  successors.  No  one  since  the  apostles 
has  attained  the  full  measure  of  their  intention.  We  may 
be  sure  that  even  the  apostles  did  not  rise  to  the  ideal  of  the 
Master  himself.  And  all  through  the  history  of  the  Church 
the  ordainers  have  varied  in  their  conceptions  of  what  the 
ministry  were  called  upon  to  do;  but  none  of  the  great  rep- 
resentative Christian  bodies  has  ever  intended  to  ordain  any 
other  kind  of  a  ministry  than  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles 
intended. 

If  Anglican  Orders  can  be  defended  only  on  the  ground 
of  the  intention  of  the  Anglican  Reformers  to  ordain  and 
perpetuate  a  Christian  ministry,  such  as  Jesus  Christ  and 
his  apostles  intended,  the  Orders  of  the  Lutheran  and  Re- 
formed Churches  may  be  defended  on  exactly  the  same 
grounds,  from  the  same  intention.  If  they  omitted  important 
items  in  the  ordination  of  their  ministry,  they  did  not  omit 
this  same  intention.  The  substance  of  the  intention  of  the 
Anglicans  and  the  Protestants  of  the  Continent  was  the  same. 
The  only  important  difference  was  that  the  Anglicans  re- 
tained the  episcopal  succession;  the  Protestants  of  the 
Continent  retained  only  succession  through  the  presbyters. 
This  difference  was  due  more  to  the  providence  of  God  than 
to  the  deliberate  choice  of  the  Reformers.  Under  these 
circumstances  the  Anglicans,  if  they  really  desire  the  reunion 
of  Christ's  Church,  ought  to  follow  the  Anglican  Reformers 


144  CHURCH  UNITY 

and  many  of  the  great  Anglican  divines  of  the  sixteenth  and 
seventeenth  centuries,  and  recognise  the  Orders  of  other 
Protestants  as  essentially  valid.  If  the  Anglicans  may  en- 
rich their  doctrine  of  the  holy  ministry  and  also  their  intention 
in  the  ceremony,  so  may  the  other  Protestants  also.  There 
is  no  serious  barrier  in  the  way  except  the  common  traditional 
opinion  among  Anglicans.  The  Church  of  England  and 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country  have  never, 
by  any  official  decision,  pronounced  Lutheran  or  Presby- 
terian Orders  invalid.  If  Pope  Leo  XIII  has  shut  the  door 
to  Rome  in  their  face,  they  have  not  as  yet  shut  the  door  to 
the  sister  Churches  of  the  Reformation. 

There  are,  in  fact,  in  the  Church  of  England  and  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  this  country,  bishops  and 
clergy  whose  views  of  the  Christian  ministry  do  not  differ 
in  any  appreciable  degree  from  those  held  in  the  various 
Protestant  Churches.  There  are  other  bishops  and  clergy 
who  do  not  vary  in  any  important  particular  from  the  Roman 
Catholic  view.  If  these  can  live  in  harmony  in  the  same 
Church,  why  should  they  make  it  so  hard  for  those,  with 
whom  they  agree,  or  at  least  whom  they  tolerate,  to  unite 
with  them?  As  the  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  the  ablest  and 
best  Anglican  authority  on  Christian  institutions,  well  says: 

A  dispassionate  study  of  the  evidence  leads  us,  then,  to  these  con- 
clusions: (1)  that  the  three  orders,  as  orders  of  Bishops,  Presbyters 
and  Deacons,  existed  from  the  time  of  the  Apostles  in  certain  parts  of 
the  Church,  especially  in  Palestine,  Syria  and  the  Province  of  Asia; 
(2)  that  in  some  other  parts,  especially  at  Rome  and  Alexandria,  there 
were  at  iBrst  only  two  orders,  the  governing  order  acting  normally  as  a 
corporate  body  or  College;  (3)  that  in  process  of  time,  and  more  particu- 
larly in  the  course  of  the  third  century,  this  governing  order  tended  more 
and  more  to  act  in  the  matter  of  ordination  through  its  Presidents,  al- 
though the  right  of  the  latter  to  act  normally  quite  alone  has  never  been 
regularly  established  except  at  Rome;  (4)  that  in  this  way  the  govern- 
ing order  in  the  West  has  been  differentiated  into  two  degrees,  though 
a  tradition  has  always  been  kept  up  that  they  had  an  essential  unity  of 
character,  now  defined  as  **  Priesthood  "  or  **  sacerdotium."  Not  only  has 
this  tradition  never  been  condemned  by  the  Church,  but  it  is  probably 
a  growing  belief;  and  it  has  much  to  recommend  it  as  a  practical  basis 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  145 

for  that  reunion  between  Episcopalians  and  Presbyterians  which  is  one 
of  the  most  obviously  necessary  tasks  of  English-speaking  Christianity. 
{Ministry  of  Grace,  1903,  p.  142.) 

V.    WHAT  IS  ORDER? 

There  is  much  confusion  as  regards  the  question  of  Order 
in  the  ministry,  because  Order  is  used  in  various  senses. 
The  Anglican  Ordinal  says  in  the  Preface: 

It  is  evident  unto  all  men  diligently  reading  the  Holy  Scripture  and 
ancient  authors,  that  from  the  apostles'  time  there  have  been  these 
Orders  of  Ministers  in  Christ's  Church:    Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons. 

Order  is  here  used  in  the  sense  of  gradation  of  ministerial 
oflfice,  not  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term.  Thus  Francis 
Mason  says; 

The  canonists  affirm  it  (the  episcopate)  to  be  an  Order,  the  school- 
men deny  it.  Yet  Bellarmine  and  Scultingius  avouch  there  is  no  differ- 
ence between  them.  Because  the  canonists  call  it  an  order  in  respect 
of  regiment,  the  schoolmen  deny  it,  as  Order  is  a  sacrament.  In  like 
manner  because  a  bishop  is  sanctified  and  set  apart  with  the  imposition 
of  hands  to  publick  employment  in  ecclesiastical  government,  the  Church 
of  England,  with  your  canonists  (the  Roman),  call  it  an  order;  and  yet 
many  deny  with  your  schoolmen  that  it  is  properly  an  order  as  Deacon- 
ship  and  Priesthood.  To  which  you  may  the  rather  be  induced  be- 
cause the  authors  of  the  Book  having  spoken  first  of  the  Ordering  of 
Deacons  and  then  of  the  Ordering  of  Priests,  when  they  came  to  the 
Form  of  making  Bishops,  they  never  call  it  Ordering  but  alwaies 
Consecrating.  (The  Validity  of  the  Ordination  of  the  Ministers  of  the 
Reformed  Churches  beyond  the  Seas  Maintained  against  the  Romanists, 
1641,  p.  157.) 

The  bishops  are  an  order  separate  from  presbyters  in 
jurisdiction,  not  in  the  proper  functions  of  the  Christian 
ministry  which  are  common  to  bishops  and  presbyters, 
as  all  the  great  scholastics  teach.  Thomas  Aquinas  says 
expressly,  ''episcopatus  non  est  ordo."^ 

Bonaventura  says: 

Episcopatus  prout  distinguitur  contra  sacerdotium,  non  est  proprie 
nomen  ordinis,  nee  novus  character  imprimitur,  nee  nova  potestas  datur, 
sed  potestas  data  ampliatur.     (Opera  V,  p.  369.) 

'  IV  sect.,  dist.  24,  qu.  2,  art.  2, 


146  CHURCH   UNITY 

Michael  de  Medina,  one  of  the  chief  authorities  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  says  that  Jerome,  Augustine,  Sedulius, 
Primasius,  Chrysostom,  Theodoret  and  Theophylact: 

Omnes  colligunt  ideo  aut  episcopos  presbyteros,  aut  presbyteros 
vocari  episcopos;  quod  una  eademque  res  esset  episcopus  et  presbyter, 
quantum  ad  ordinis  potestatem  attinet.  {De  sacrorum  hominum 
origine,  lib.  i,  cap.  5.) 

Canisius,  the  great  teacher  of  the  Jesuits  of  the  Counter- 
reformation,  in  his  Catechism  of  world-wide  use,  says : 

And  although  as  touching  the  sacrament  of  Order  and  the  authority 
of  offering  sacrifice  there  be  no  difference  between  bishops  and  priests, 
yet  are  they  more  excellent  and  higher  than  priests  if  we  consider  the 
power  and  authority  of  governing  the  Church,  of  feeding  souls,  of  con- 
firming the  baptized  and  of  ordering  clerks. 

To  these  authorities  it  is  sufficient  to  add  the  chief  Jesuit 
Professor  of  Scholastic  Theology  in  Rome,  Billot : 

Fide  catholica  credendum  est  episcopos  esse  simplicibus  presbyteris 
potestate  ordinis  superiores.  Quotamen  non  obstante  dicendum 
videtur  novum  characterem  in  consecratione  episcopali  non  dari,  sed 
preexistentem  ampliari  ad  eas  sacrorum  collationes  quae  completive  ac 
veluti  cumulative  per  legem  Novi  Testamenti  Sacerdotio  adscribuntur. 
(De  Ecclesiw  Sacramentis.    Thesis  xxxi,  p.  281.) 

As  regards  the  ordination  of  priests  by  bishops,  it  should 
be  recognised:  (1)  that  this  ordination  by  a  bishop  is  not 
isolated  from  ordination  by  priests,  two  of  whom  at  least 
share  in  the  ordination,  not  as  spectators  or  witnesses  as 
some  have  supposed,  but  as  active  participants  in  the  ordina- 
tion. (2)  The  bishop  confers  nothing  additional  to  that 
which  the  priests  confer  except  the  authority  lodged  in  his 
superior  jurisdiction  by  the  Law  of  the  Church.  (3)  The 
authority  to  ordain  may  be  given  by  the  Pope  or  patriarch 
to  presbyters.  Therefore,  ordination  by  presbyters  alone, 
without  a  bishop,  must  be  regarded  as  valid  ordination, 
even  if  it  be  deemed  irregular  because  contrary  to  Church 
Law  and  custom, 


THE   VALIDITY   OF   ORDERS  147 


Rosellus  says; 


The  doctors  are  of  opinion  that  the  pope  may  commit  to  any  clerk 
that  he  may  confer  those  things  which  he  himself  hath:  as  if  he  be  a 
presbyter,  he  may  ordain  a  presbyter;  if  he  be  a  deacon,  he  may  make 
a  deacon  at  the  pope's  commandment.  ...  I  hold  that  the  pope  may 
give  commission  to  presbyters  to  confer  all  sacred  orders,  even  minor 
orders,  and  in  this  I  stand  with  the  opinion  of  the  canonists.  {De 
potestate  Imperatoris  et  Papas,  pt.  iv,  cap.  16.) 

Morin,  in  his  great  work  on  Ordinations,  gives  a  long  list 
of  canonists  who  hold  this  opinion.^  If  the  Pope  can  give 
such  authority  to  ordain  to  presbyters,  he  does  it  because  of 
his  superior  power  of  jurisdiction,  not  because  of  his  having 
any  more  of  the  character  of  Order  to  impart  than  a  simple 
priest.  If  the  Pope  can  do  this,  a  patriarch  may  when  he 
has  the  supreme  jurisdiction.  And  so  may  any  other  supreme 
jurisdiction  in  a  Church,  whether  it  be  the  King  of  England 
or  a  German  prince  or  a  General  Assembly  of  a  Presby- 
terian Church  or  the  Supreme  Consistory  of  a  Lutheran 
Church. 

The  question  of  the  validity  of  Presb3i;erian  Orders  must, 
therefore,  be  answered  in  the  affirmative  from  the  point  of 
view  of  ministerial  Order.  The  only  question  really  open  is 
whether  such  ordinations  are  regular.  They  are  not  regular 
in  Episcopal  Churches  except  in  the  circumstances  given 
above;  but  they  are  regular  in  Presbyterian,  Lutheran, 
Congregational  and  other  Churches,  because  the  Law  of 
those  Churches  justifies  such  ordinations. 

So  far  as  a  Reunion  of  these  other  Churches  with  the 
Episcopal  Churches  is  concerned,  there  is  no  need  of  any  re- 
ordination  for  the  conferring  of  ministerial  character.  If 
there  be  a  reordination  it  is  only  for  the  purpose  of  making 
the  ministry  regular  so  far  as  jurisdiction  is  concerned. 

*  Commerdarius  De  Sacris  EcdesicB  Ordinationilms,  Pars,  iii,  exerc.  4, 
cap.  3. 


148  CHURCH  UNITY 


VI.    ORDER  AND  SACRAMENT 

Order  is  considered  as  one  of  the  seven  sacraments  in  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  and  one  of  the  seven  mysteries  in 
the  Greek  and  Oriental  Churches.  Protestants  do  not  re- 
gard it  as  a  sacrament;  yet  it  is  generally  considered  a  means 
of  ministerial  grace  and  by  many  as  having  sacramental 
character.  The  sacramental  grace  of  Order  is  in  the  ordina- 
tion of  the  priesthood,  endowing  the  priest  with  the  grace  to 
fulfil  ministerial  functions  of  prophecy,  priesthood  and  royalty. 
The  consecration  of  a  bishop  is  not  a  separate  sacrament. 
If  it  have  sacramental  character,  it  is  only  an  extension  of  the 
sacrament  of  priesthood,  not  a  different  sacrament  from  that 
of  priesthood.  All  the  ancient  canonists  hold  to  this,  and  the 
ablest  modem  Roman  Catholic  scholastics  and  canonists 
agree.  If  this  be  so,  then  the  bishop  has  no  more  sacra- 
mental grace  to  bestow  than  a  presbyter.  The  only  exten- 
sion of  grace  he  has  he  cannot  bestow,  because  that  be- 
longs to  him  as  bishop. 

Durandus  regards  the  Order  of  the  priesthood  as  a  sacra- 
ment, the  six  lesser  orders  being  Scwramentalia,  Priesthood 
and  episcopate  are  one  sacrament,  as  the  episcopate  can  be 
given  only  to  one  already  priest.^  If  the  consecration  of  a 
bishop  does  not  confer  any  new  character,  but  only  extends 
and  amplifies  the  character  already  bestowed  on  priesthood, 
as  the  Anglican  archbishops  seem  to  imply  when  they  say, 
"  with  full  right  to  dispense  the  word  and  mysteries  of  God, 
whether  he  remain  a  presbyter  or  be  advanced  to  higher 
duties  as  bishop;"^  then,  when  Anglo-Catholics  insist  so 
strongly  upon  the  special  character  of  bishops,  they  are  de- 
luding themselves  with  a  false  conception  by  making  too 
great  a  distinction  between  bishop  and  priest;  and  in  this 
respect  they  differ  from  all  other  authorities  of  all  other 
Christian  Churches  throughout  the  world  and  are  without 

'  In  Sent.  4,  dist.  24,  qu.  2. 
'  Loc.  cit.,  p.  27. 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  149 

support  in  ancient,  mediaeval  or  modern  times  save  in  a  few 
Anglican  divines. 

It  is  evident  that  those  who  composed  the  Anglican  Ordinal 
did  not  think  that  the  consecration  of  a  bishop  conferred  any 
special  character  or  had  anything  of  the  nature  of  a  sacra- 
ment connected  with  it.  The  Preface  to  the  Ordinal  does 
not  claim  any  divine  right  for  the  episcopate,  but  appeals 
solely  and  alone  to  historic  fact: 

It  is  evident  unto  all  men  diligently  reading  the  Holy  Scripture  and 
ancient  Authors,  that  from  the  Apostles*  time  there  have  been  these 
Orders  in  Christ's  Church:   Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons. 

Furthermore,  it  does  not  venture  to  make  a  rule  for  other 
Christian  Churches  but  only  for  the  Church  of  England, 
when  it  says: 

And  therefore  to  the  intent  these  orders  should  be  continued,  and 
reverently  used  and  esteemed  in  this  Church  of  England:  it  is  requisite 
that  no  man  (not  being  at  this  present  Bishop,  Priest  or  Deacon)  shall 
execute  any  of  them,  except  he  be  called,  tried,  examined  and  admitted, 
according  to  the  form  hereafter  following. 

It  does  not  pronounce  upon  the  kind  of  ordination  required 
by  the  Reformed  Churches  of  the  Continent  with  whom 
the  Church  of  England  was  in  fellowship  during  the  sixteenth 
and  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  centuries.  It  was  not  until 
the  Revision  of  1661,  after  the  Civil  Wars  had  embittered  con- 
troversy as  to  Orders,  that  the  addition  was  made:  "or  hath 
had  formerly  episcopal  consecration  or  ordination,"  with  the 
intent  of  ruling  out  those  who  had  received  Presbyterian 
ordination  in  Great  Britain.  But  this  addition  did  not  make 
any  essential  change  in  the  Ordinal,  or  go  any  further  than 
make  the  rule  more  specific  with  reference  to  the  Church  of 
England  and  that  Church  alone,  except  so  far  as  daughter 
Churches  have  followed  in  its  footsteps. 

At  this  point  the  Roman  Catholic  criticism  of  Anglican 
Orders  seems  to  be  just.  In  the  consecration  of  a  bishop, 
these  words  only  were  used:  *' Receive  .the  Holy  Ghost/'  in 
the  original  Ordinal  before  1661,  with  the  exhortation,  "and 


150  CHURCH  UNITY 

remember  that  thou  stir  up  the  grace  which  is  given  thee 
by  this  imposition  of  our  hands;  for  God  hath  not  given  us 
the  spirit  of  fear,  but  of  power  and  love  and  soberness." 

There  is  nothing  in  this  form  which  suggests  any  more, 
as  Estcourt  urges,  than  the  grace  implored  for  an  abbot 
when  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  he  is  consecrated  to 
his  office.  The  quotation  from  II  Tim.  i.  6-7  does  not  in 
itself  suggest  the  episcopal  office  except  to  those  who  put 
that  special  interpretation  upon  the  text.  And  it  seems  clear 
from  Cranmer,  the  chief  composer  of  the  Ordinal,  and  Barlow, 
the  chief  consecrator  of  Parker,  and  the  influence  of  Bucer 
and  other  Reformed  divines  at  the  time,  that  there  was  not 
any  other  thought  or  intention  than  of  consecrating  an  officer 
of  the  Church,  giving  him  authority  to  exercise  his  office  and 
appropriate  jurisdiction.  They  had  no  intention  of  imprint- 
ing any  special  episcopal  character,  and  there  is  nothing 
whatever  in  the  formula  itself  to  suggest  any  other  intention 
than  that  of  Cranmer,  Barlow  and  their  associates  at  the 
time.  The  change  of  opinion  in  the  Church  of  England  on 
the  part  of  the  Anglican  episcopate  and  priesthood,  however 
extensive  it  may  have  been,  first  from  the  human  right  of  the 
episcopate  to  the  divine  right  first  expressed  by  Bancroft, 
and  then  to  a  special  apostolic  succession  for  Anglican 
bishops  with  special  episcopal  character  imprinted  in  con- 
secration which  seems  to  be  the  opinion  of  the  Laudian 
school,  cannot  change  the  original  intent  of  the  Ordinal 
upon  which  the  Anglican  episcopate  is  based;  because  that 
change  of  opinion  has  never  been  expressed  in  any  revision 
of  the  Ordinal;  and  if  it  had  been,  it  would  be  too  late,  for 
it  could  not  restore  a  succession  which  had  already  lapsed 
if  the  Anglo-Catholic  theory  of  the  episcopate  be  correct. 

But  it  is  not  correct,  it  is  eccentric  and  unjustifiable.  The 
Anglican  episcopate  has  now  what  it  always  has  had  and 
nothing  more,  namely,  episcopal  succession  so  far  as  authority 
and  jurisdiction  are  concerned,  but  not  so  far  as  any  special 
episcopal  character  is  concerned.  Its  priestly  character, 
so  far  as  it  has  any,  it  gets  from  priestly  ordination  and  not 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  151 

from  episcopal  consecration.  The  only  way  in  which  Anglican 
Orders  can  be  successfully  maintained  is  the  same  way  in 
which  the  Orders  of  the  other  Protestant  Churches  can  be 
maintained,  namely,  through  presbyterial  succession  which 
alone  transmits  the  functions  of  prophecy,  priesthood  and 
royalty  in  all  the  Churches  of  the  Reformation. 

If  the  Anglo-Catholic  party  take  too  high  a  view  of  epis- 
copal Orders,  the  other  Protestants  often  take  too  low  a  view 
of  the  sacramental  character  of  the  Christian  priesthood.  As 
I  shall  show  elsewhere  in  this  book,*  the  Reformers  excluded 
Order  from  the  sacraments  because  they  would  have  no 
other  sacred  institution  ranked  with  Baptism  and  the  Eucha- 
rist. This  led  them  inevitably  to  a  depreciation  of  the 
priestly  grace  in  ordination,  especially  by  the  successors  of 
the  Reformers.  In  this  they  made  a  great  mistake.  But 
they  did  not  go  so  far  as  to  do  away  with  the  sacred  institu- 
tion of  Order.  They  still  retained  the  matter  and  the  form 
of  Order  which  have  always  been  regarded  as  the  only  es- 
sential things.  They  used  the  imposition  of  hands,  and  the 
institutional  words  of  Jesus  Christ,  in  some  one  of  his  apos- 
tolic commissions,  which  they  regarded  as  effective  words, 
real  means  of  conveying  ministerial  grace.  Therefore,  they 
were  correct  in  essentials  though  in  error  in  non-essentials, 
and  their  ordinations  did,  in  fact,  convey  the  grace  of  the  Chris- 
tian ministry  and  transmit  it  from  generation  to  generation 
in  the  Protestant  Churches.  The  divine  grace  of  Order  was 
not  limited  to  their  personal  theories  or  intentions,  but  was 
only  measured  by  the  intention  of  Jesus  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  whose  mind  they  intended  to  perpetuate  in  a  min- 
istry reformed  after  his  own  heart. 

The  Roman  Catholic  opinion  that  reordination  is  sacri- 
legious unless  conditioned  is  from  the  point  of  view  of  that 
sacramental  character  of  Order  which  Protestants  do  not 
hold.  If  reordination  be  sacrilegious  the  authorities  of  the 
Church  ought  to  be  extremely  careful  lest  they  commit  that 
sin.  They  should  not  venture  to  question  the  validity  of 
*  The  Sacramental  System. 


152  CHURCH  UNITY 

Orders  merely  in  the  interest  of  certain  theories  as  to  the 
origin  of  the  Christian  ministry,  or  as  to  its  nature,  which 
may  be  possible  or  probable,  but  which  cannot  be  regarded 
as  certain;  for  the  Church  of  Christ  is  now  and  ever  has  been 
greatly  divided  about  them;  and  in  the  present  division  of 
Churches,  one  Church  is  as  eager  to  fulfil  the  intent  of  Jesus 
Christ  and  his  apostles  as  the  others;  and  none  of  them  has 
the  divine  warrant  of  Holy  Scripture  or  the  consensus  of 
primitive  Christianity  to  sustain  its  discordant  theories  and 
practices. 

From  this  point  of  view  those  who  deem  the  repetition  of 
Order  sacrilegious  cannot  be  so  sensitive  about  it  as  they 
profess  to  be,  otherwise  they  would  not  run  the  risks  of  so 
many  sins  of  sacrilege  as  they  continually  commit  in  reordain- 
ing  Christian  ministers  who  have  been  ordained  in  other 
Christian  Churches  with  the  sincere  intention  of  giving  them 
the  ministerial  character  which  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles 
proposed,  and  who  have  attested  their  ministry  by  the 
presence  and  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  conversion  of 
souls,  the  Christian  nurture  of  their  congregations  and  the 
godliness  of  their  ministerial  life. 

VII.    FUNCTION  AND  JURISDICTION 

It  should  be  recognised  that  there  are  two  distinct  things 
in  ordination :  the  one  the  impartation  of  ministerial  function, 
the  other  the  authority  to  exercise  the  same;  the  former  is 
transmitted  by  the  succession  of  presbyters,  the  latter  is 
given  by  the  jurisdiction,  whatever  it  be,  which  ordains.  This 
distinction  is  clearly  made  in  Church  Law.  Ordinarily  it  is 
necessary  to  have  the  appointment  to  a  cure  or  some  special 
ministerial  office  or  there  can  be  no  ordination.  In  the 
ordination  of  a  priest  the  two  things,  function  and  authority, 
are  both  given,  and  usually  also  jurisdiction.  But  for 
suflBcient  reasons  ordination  may  be  given  without  a  cure  and 
then  the  minister  receives  the  functions  and  a  sort  of  general 
authority,  but  has  no  particular  jurisdiction  in  which  to 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  153 

exercise  his  functions.  And  so  a  priest  may  be  removed 
from  his  cure  and  lose  all  authority  to  act  as  a  minister,  but 
his  ministerial  character  cannot  be  taken  from  him. 

So  far  as  authority  is  concerned,  no  jurisdiction  can  give  it 
beyond  its  own  sphere.  From  this  point  of  view  ordination 
is  valid  only  for  the  religious  body  or  Church  which  gives  it, 
and  for  no  other  body  whatever.  A  minister  who  wishes 
to  remove  from  one  Church  to  another  Church  has  to  receive 
authority  from  that  new  jurisdiction  before  he  can  exercise 
his  ministry  therein.  They  may  recognise  his  ordination  as 
valid  so  far  as  his  ministerial  character  is  concerned,  but 
not  so  far  as  giving  him  the  right  to  exercise  his  ministry 
within  their  jurisdiction.  All  denominations  receive  min- 
isters from  other  bodies  with  ceremonies  appropriate  to  the 
occasion  but  varying  in  character,  which  impart  to  them  the 
authority  to  exercise  the  ministry  under  their  jurisdiction. 

The  ministry  of  other  Protestant  Churches  who  wish  to 
become  ministers  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  are 
made  such  by  ordination  to  the  diaconate  and  the  priest- 
hood. The  question  now  arises.  Does  such  an  ordination 
imply  the  conferring  of  ministerial  character  for  the  first 
time  or  only  the  authority  to  use  it  within  the  bounds  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  ?  There  is  a  difference  of  opinion 
on  this  subject  which  goes  back  to  the  seventeenth  century. 
These  differences  of  opinion  do  not  determine  the  intention 
of  the  Church  either  one  way  or  the  other.  The  intention  of 
the  Church  should  be  sought  in  the  minds  of  those  who  made 
the  Ordinal,  in  the  Ordinal  itself  and  in  the  consensus  of 
opinion  about  it.  None  of  these  justify  the  opinion  that  the 
reordination  of  Presbyterian  ministers  was  designed  to  im- 
print character.  It  is  only  the  impartation  of  ministerial 
authority. 

The  Church  of  England  and  its  daughters  have  never 
officially  denied  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  Orders  but 
have  only  insisted  upon  episcopal  ordination  in  order  to  exer- 
cise the  ministry  within  its  jurisdiction.  That  is  the  view 
with  which  Bishop  Leighton  accepted  episcopal  ordination. 


154  CHURCH  UNITY 

That  is  the  view  with  which  it  was  given  to  me  and  with 
which  I  accepted  it.  And  this  has  been  the  view  of  a  great 
many  others  in  the  several  centuries  since  the  Reformation. 

This  is,  doubtless,  distasteful  to  the  Anglo-Catholic  party, 
but,  as  we  have  seen,  they  do  not  represent  the  Anglican 
reformers  and  they  cannot  force  their  opinion  into  the  Ordinal 
with  whose  origin  and  early  history  they  had  nothing  to  do. 

We  have  seen  that  the  consecration  of  a  bishop  is  not  an 
ordination,  but  a  consecration,  which  does  not  in  the  Church 
of  England  confer  any  ministerial  functions  but  only  the 
authority  and  jurisdiction  of  a  bishop  over  a  diocese.  Just 
so  the  ordination  of  a  Presbyterian  minister  by  a  bishop  does 
not  confer  ministerial  functions  but  only  authority  to  exercise 
those  functions  within  a  particular  jurisdiction  or  cure. 

The  difficulty  that  is  felt  by  those  who  think  such  an  ordina- 
tion to  be  a  reflection  upon  their  ministerial  character  is  that 
they  do  not  distinguish  in  ordination  between  the  bestowal 
of  ministerial  character  and  the  grant  of  authority  and  juris- 
diction. The  laying  on  of  hands  does  not  in  itself  imply 
the  imprinting  of  a  character,  for  such  laying  on  of  hands  is 
used  for  many  different  things.     As  Estcourt  says: 

Thus  the  imposition  of  hands  is  given  to  constitute  the  abbot  in 
his  oflBce,  not  to  confer  an  Order;  and  the  prayers  are  made  for  his 
sanctification  and  perseverance  in  grace,  not  for  a  sacramental  consecra- 
tion.    {Loc.  cit.,  p.  197.) 

There  are  two  alternate  forms  in  the  ordering  of  a  priest 
in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  the  first  the  same  as 
that  of  the  Church  of  England,  the  second  added  at  the 
organisation  of  the  American  Church  because  of  miscon- 
ceptions of  the  priest's  functions  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
as  follows: 

Take  thou  authority  to  execute  the  office  of  a  priest  in  the  Church  of 
Ood  now  committed  to  thee  by  the  imposition  of  our  hands. 

The  American  bishop  may  use  either  of  these  forms;  the 
first  emphasizes  the  functions,  the  second  the  authority  to 
use  the  functions.     So  far  as  the  second  goes,  the  phrase 


THE   VALIDITY   OF   ORDERS  155 

"in  the  Church  of  God"  seems  to  be  universal,  but  it  practi- 
cally means  no  more  than  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
and  it  would  have  been  wiser  and  better  to  say  so;  for  no 
other  denomination  of  Christians  will  recognise  that  authority 
within  its  jurisdiction. 

The  original  form  of  the  Church  of  England  certainly 
intended  to  imprint  character.  But  it  may  not  do  so  in  the 
case  of  one  who  has  already  received  ministerial  character 
by  Presbyterian  ordination.  If  it  be  said  that  the  same  form 
cannot  convey  ministerial  character  in  one  case  and  not  in 
another,  it  may  be  answered  that  this  is  exactly  what  it  does 
or  does  not  do  in  unconditional  and  conditional  ordinations. 
Differences  of  opinion  as  to  the  validity  of  orders  do  not 
affect  the  conveyance  of  the  grace  of  order  whether  it  is 
bestowed  or  not  as  the  circumstances  require. 

The  fact  is  that  the  Church  of  England  and  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  of  America  require  ordination  by  bishops 
in  order  to  exercise  the  functions  of  priesthood  in  these 
Churches.  Inasmuch  as  these  Churches  have  never  oflS- 
cially  denied  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  orders  for  Presby- 
terian Churches;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the  founders  of 
the  Reformed  Church  of  England,  and  the  most  represent- 
ative divines  for  a  century  after  the  Reformation,  recognised 
Presbyterian  Orders  as  valid  while  still  requiring  Episcopal 
orders  for  ministry  in  the  Church  of  England;  it  should  be 
evident  that  the  ordination  of  Presbyterian  ministers  enter- 
ing the  ministry  of  the  Church  of  England  and  its  daughters 
does  not  decide  as  to  the  validity  of  their  orders  so  far  as 
ministerial  character  and  functions  are  concerned;  but  only 
so  far  as  authority  and  jurisdiction  are  concerned. 

The  laying  on  of  hands  is  the  most  appropriate  ceremony 
for  imparting  ministerial  authority  and  jurisdiction  for  priest 
and  bishop,  and  it  may  mean  no  more  in  the  one  case  than  in 
the  other.  It  were  better  that  there  should  be  two  formulas, 
the  one  bestowing  ministerial  character,  authority  and  juris- 
diction, the  other  bestowing  only  the  latter.  But,  in  the 
division  of  opinion  that  exists  at  the  present  time,  this  could 


156  CHURCH  UNITY 

not  easily  be  accomplished.  The  two  interpretations  of  the 
ordination  or  reordination  of  Presbyterian  ministers  have 
long  existed  side  by  side,  and  they  will  continue  for  some 
time  to  come.  All  that  we  need  contend  for  is  that  the  form- 
ula may  convey  ministerial  character  or  it  may  not,  according 
to  the  circumstances  of  the  case;  and,  therefore,  that  no  one 
need  fear  lest  he  should  compromise  his  ministry  in  other 
denominations  by  accepting  episcopal  ordination  for  a  min- 
istry in  the  Church  of  England  or  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  of  America. 

The  results  thus  far  attained  are  confirmed  by  the  consid- 
eration of  the  three  functions  of  the  Christian  ministry  in 
their  bearing  on  the  question  of  Orders. 

1.  The  Prophetic  Function. — It  is  universally  recognised 
that  the  prophetic  function  is  one  of  the  great  functions  of 
the  Christian  ministry.  It  includes  teaching  and  preaching, 
and  various  kinds  and  spheres  of  each.  Some  ministers 
have  greater  gifts  than  others  in  this  regard.  In  some  this 
gift  is  but  small.  Now,  if  this  prophetic  gift  had  fallen  into 
disuse,  would  that  invalidate  the  Christian  ministry  ?  Some 
of  the  early  Puritans  thought  so,  and  called  Roman  Catholic 
and  even  Anglican  priests  who  could  not  preach  "dumb 
dogs." ' 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  great  mass  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  priests  and  even  bishops  and  popes,  in  the  centuries 
before  the  Reformation,  did  no  preaching  at  all.  Even 
in  Rome  preaching  was  abandoned  several  times  for  long 
periods.  Who  dare  affirm  that  the  Christian  ministry  ex- 
pired in  those  who  were  dumb  in  this  sacred  function  of 
Prophecy  ? 

2.  The  Royal  Function. — ^X^^^re  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
royal  function  of  government  and  discipline  belongs  to  the 
Christian  ministry.  It  has  never  been  taken  away  altogether 
from  the  priest  so  far  as  his  own  parish  is  concerned;  but 
in  this  he  has  often  been  restricted  and  subjected  to  tyran- 
nical interference  by  bishops  and  other  prelates,  and  his  rights 

» Is.  Ivi.  10. 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  167 

as  a  minister  of  Christ  seriously  impaired.  He  has  been  de- 
prived altogether  of  his  share  in  the  general  government  of 
the  Church,  and  has  been  reduced  to  bondage  under  an  ab- 
solute despotism  in  many  parts  of  the  Christian  worid. 
That  is  the  situation  at  present  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church.  Even  the  bishops  have  been  deprived  of  their 
authority  and  reduced  to  bondage  under  the  Pope.  Does 
this  impairment  of  his  royal  functions  deprive  the  priest 
of  his  Christian  ministry?  Does  this  absorption  of  all  au- 
thority in  the  Pope  make  him  the  only  valid  Christian  priest  ? 
No  one  can  rightly  say  such  things. 

3.  The  Priestly  Function. — When  now  we  consider  the 
priestly  function  of  the  ministry,  it  may  be  admitted  that  in 
the  Protestant  ministry  that  function  has  been  reduced  to  a 
minimum.  Even  if  we  should  go  so  far  as  to  say,  with  the 
Pope,  that  the  sacrificial  priesthood  was  rejected  by  the 
Protestant  Reformers  and  no  longer  exists  in  the  Protestant 
ministry,  would  that  destroy  the  ministry  of  the  Protestant 
Churches  ?    We  ought  not  to  say  so. 

If  the  priestly  function  is  at  the  minimum  among  Prot- 
estants, the  prophetic  and  the  royal  functions  are  both  in 
vigorous  use,  and  much  more  effective  than  they  have  ever  been 
before  in  Christian  history.  All  Protestant  ministers  intend 
to  be  just  such  ministers  as  they  think  Jesus  Christ  and  his 
apostles  intended.  So  far  as  they  fall  short  of  the  ideal 
ministry,  it  is  a  sin  of  ignorance  and  not  a  sin  of  intention. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  royal  function  of  the  priesthood  is 
reduced  to  a  minimum  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and 
the  great  mass  of  Catholic  priests  for  centuries  lost  all  power 
to  use  the  prophetic  function,  and,  if  we  mistake  not,  even 
now  the  greater  part  of  the  priests  seldom  if  ever  preach. 
Here,  again,  the  Roman  Catholic  priesthood  fall  far  short  of 
the  Master^s  ideal;  the  only  thing  in  which  they  excel  is 
the  priestly  function. 

If  the  priestly  function  were  the  one  great  essential  function 
of  the  presbyter,  then  the  Protestant  ministry  might  be  dis- 
credited as  it  is  by  the  Roman  Catholics.     If  the  prophetic 


158  CHURCH  UNITY 

function  of  the  presbyter  were  the  one  great  essential  function, 
then  the  Roman  CathoUc  ministry  might  be  discredited  as 
it  has  been  by  Protestants.  But  if  the  Christian  ministry 
is  endowed  with  the  three  functions  in  harmonious  propor- 
tions, then  the  faihire  of  any  one  of  them,  on  occasion  or  in 
individuals,  cannot  destroy  the  ministry  however  greatly  it 
may  impair  its  usefulness.  The  Roman  Catholics  have 
much  to  learn  from  the  Protestants  and  the  Protestants  much 
to  learn  from  the  Roman  Catholics.  The  ideal  ministry 
intended  by  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles  is  much  more 
comprehensive  and  eflScient  than  either  or  than  both  com- 
bined. 

What,  it  may  be  asked,  is  episcopal  character?  What 
character  does  a  bishop  receive  at  his  consecration  that 
he  did  not  have  already  as  priest  ?  If  it  be  said  that  the  priest's 
character  is  extended,  to  what  is  it  extended  ?  The  bishop 
is  no  more  of  a  priest  than  he  was  before.  The  consecration 
does  not  extend  or  intensify  his  priestly  functions  except  so 
far  as  jurisdiction  is  concerned  in  making  him  a  higher  priest. 
Experience  shows  that  the  bishops  are  not  usually  as  good 
priests  as  parish  priests,  because  their  oflficial  duties  lead  them 
away  and  make  it  difficult  for  them  to  exercise  their  priestly 
functions  so  often  or  so  fruitfully  as  they  did  before  they  be- 
came bishops. 

The  bishop  is  no  more  a  prophet  than  he  was  before.  The 
great  preachers  and  teachers  of  the  Church  are  rarely  bishops, 
at  least  in  modem  times;  and  such  bishops  as  excel  in  this 
function  attained  their  excellence  before  they  became  bishops 
and  not  subsequent  to  their  episcopal  consecration. 

The  bishop  has  no  more  of  the  royal  function  than  before 
except  so  far  as  he  uses  the  function  in  a  higher  and  more 
extended  jurisdiction.  If  he  intrudes  into  the  royal  function 
of  his  priests,  it  is  by  usurpation  and  not  because  he  has 
more  of  the  royal  function  of  the  ministry.  Just  here  is  the 
habitual  sin  of  the  episcopate.  They  too  often  show  that  their 
royal  function  has  not  been  extended  by  consecration ;  their 
striving  after  power  and  lordship  over  their  brethren  makes 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  159 

it  evident  that  they  are  lacking  in  Christ's  royal  gift.     The 
Master  said: 

Ye  know  that  they  which  are  accounted  to  rule  over  the  Gentiles 
lord  it  over  them;  and  their  great  ones  exercise  authority  over  them. 
But  it  is  not  so  among  you:  but  whosoever  would  become  great 
among  you,  shall  be  your  minister:  and  whosoever  would  be  first 
among  you,  shall  be  servant  of  all.    (Mk.  x,  42-44,  Mtth.  xx,  25-27.) 

The  supposed  special  ministerial  character  of  bishops  is 
a  delusion  and  a  snare;  and  when  you  search  for  it,  you  find 
nothing  more  than  superior  jurisdiction,  which  is  not  minis- 
terial character  or  episcopal  character,  except  it  be  taken  in 
an  unwarranted  and  unnatural  sense. 

VIII.    RESTORATION  OF  THE  EPISCOPATE 

It  is  usual  to  think  of  the  restoration  of  the  episcopate 
to  those  Churches  which  have  it  not,  very  much  as  in  the  case 
of  the  restoration  of  episcopacy  to  the  Church  of  Scotland 
at  the  Restoration  in  1661.  But  from  the  point  of  view  of 
episcopal  consecration  as  giving  the  power  of  jurisdiction, 
that  consecration  was  irregular.  What  jurisdiction  had  the 
Anglican  bishops  over  the  Church  of  Scotland  ?  How  could 
they  give  a  jurisdiction  which  was  not  theirs  to  give?  It  is 
only  by  attributing  to  episcopal  consecration  something 
which  the  ancient  Canon  Law  does  not  allow,  that  such  a 
consecration  can  be  justified. 

A  superior  jurisdiction,  such  as  that  of  the  Pope  over  the 
entire  Catholic  Church,  might  give  jurisdiction  to  bishops  of 
national  Churches,  but  the  bishops  of  one  national  Church 
cannot  give  it  to  another  national  Church.  Therefore  we 
must  abandon  the  thought  of  the  Church  of  England  re- 
storing episcopates  to  other  nations. 

The  episcopates  of  Norway  and  Sweden  seem  to  have 
episcopal  succession  very  much  as  the  Church  of  England. 
The  episcopate  of  Denmark,  however,  received  its  juris- 
diction from  the  only  body  competent  to  give  it,  the  presbyters 
of  the  national  Church  of  Denmark  acting  under  the  au- 


160  CHURCH   UNITY 

thority  of  the  whole  Church.  The  presbyters  of  th^'s  country 
consecrated  their  bishops,  just  as  in  ancient  times  bishops 
were  selected,  consecrated  and  enthroned  by  their  presbyters. 
The  one  episcopate  is  as  valid  as  the  other.  It  would  gain 
nothing  whatever  by  a  reconsecration  by  Anglican  bishops. 

The  same  situation  emerges  with  reference  to  the  bishops 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  These  bishops  have 
received  their  jurisdiction  from  the  only  body  competent 
to  give  it,  the  General  Conference,  and  the  consecration 
provided  by  the  laws  of  that  Church.  This  great  denomina- 
tion of  Christians  could  not  recognise  the  superior  jurisdiction 
of  the  bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  and  re- 
ceive jurisdiction  from  them. 

The  Anglicans  are  hugging  to  their  bosom  a  very  peculiar 
and  unjustifiable  theory  of  the  episcopate  as  a  higher  order 
in  grace,  having  special  ministerial  character  and  functions, 
as  well  as  jurisdiction,  which  theory  must  be  put  aside  in 
order  to  justify  the  Anglican  episcopate  itself,  and  in  order 
to  promote  the  re-establishment  of  episcopacy  in  the  non- 
episcopal  Churches. 

Other  Christian  Churches,  when  they  are  ready  to  add 
the  episcopate  to  their  Presbyterian  organisation,  will  doubt- 
less be  glad  of  the  co-operation  of  bishops  of  sister  Churches 
in  the  consecration  of  their  bishops;  but  such  an  arrange- 
ment will  be  one  of  sisterly  courtesy  and  intercommunion, 
not  one  of  episcopal  prerogative. 

The  Pope  is  not  invested  with  his  office  by  another  pope, 
but,  having  been  elected  by  the  college  of  cardinals,  he  is 
consecrated  by  bishops.  So  the  patriarchs  of  the  Churches 
of  the  East  do  not  go  to  other  patriarchs  for  induction  in 
their  higher  jurisdiction,  but  are  consecrated  by  bishops. 
Bishops  are  consecrated  by  other  bishops  appointed  for  the 
purpose  by  some  higher  jurisdiction.  But  if  there  be  no 
higher  jurisdiction  in  a  national  or  denominational  Church 
than  a  General  Assembly  or  Conference  or  Association  or 
Synod,  or  any  other  college  of  presbyters;  then  that  college 
as  the  supreme  judicatory  of  the  Church  may,  through  i:ep- 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  161 

resentative  presbyters  appointed  for  the  purpose,  make  the 
consecration  of  bishops;  and  that  consecration  is  just  as  valid 
as  one  made  by  other  bishops  in  an  episcopal  organisation, 
however  irregular  it  may  be,  as  contrary  to  the  prevailing 
usage  of  the  Christian  Church. 

Such  a  consecration  of  bishops  by  presbyters  becomes 
necessary  owing  to  the  divisions  of  the  Church  into  a  number 
of  national  Churches  and  denominational  Churches,  in  which 
situation  no  foreign  Church  or  different  denomination  can 
rightly  consecrate  through  its  bishops;  because  these  foreign 
Churches  and  different  denominations  have  no  proper  juris- 
diction over  other  Churches  than  their  own. 

The  Anglican  bishops  felt  this  difficulty  when  they  con- 
secrated bishops  for  the  newly  organised  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  of  the  United  States.  A  special  Act  of  Parliament 
was  necessary,  and  the  approval  of  the  King  of  England,  to 
give  the  English  bishops  the  authority  to  consecrate  foreign 
bishops.  And  even  then  it  could  only  be  justified  by  the  fact 
that  they  had  been  requested  by  the  infant  American  Epis- 
copal Church  to  do  so,  and  that  they  were  consecrating 
bishops  to  a  missionary  jurisdiction. 

The  consecration  of  the  American  and  the  Scottish  bishops 
by  bishops  of  the  Church  of  England  cannot  be  regarded  as 
precedents  for  the  consecration  of  bishops  of  other  national 
Churches  or  of  other  denominations  of  Christians  in  Great 
Britain  and  America.  They  were  anomalous  actions  not 
strictly  justifiable  by  Canon  Law,  and  they  really  gave  noth- 
ing more  to  those  bishops  than  they  would  have  received 
if  they  had  been  consecrated  by  presbyters  appointed  by  the 
jurisdiction  which  selected  them  for  bishops. 

IX.     RECOGNITION  OF  ORDERS 

If  there  is  ever  to  be  a  Reunion  of  Christ's  Church,  the 
theories  and  prejudices  of  the  different  national  Churches 
and  religious  denominations,  and  parties  in  the  same,  must 
be  put  aside  and  an  agreement  made  upon  the  basis  of  facts 
and  lawful  precedents. 


162  CHURCH   UNITY 

The  diflBculty  here  is  not  as  to  the  future;  that  will  take 
care  of  itself.  The  difficulty  is  in  making  the  transition. 
The  difficulty  is  with  the  theory  of  the  three  orders  of  the 
ministry  as  resting  on  divine  right.  Those  in  the  Episcopal 
Churches  who  do  not  accept  this  theory  would  have  little 
difficulty  in  recognising  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  ordina- 
tion as  to  essence.  Presbyterian  ordination  has  all  the  virtue  in 
it  that  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbyters  can  impart. 
It  only  lacks  that  virtue  that  comes  from  the  bishop's  hands. 
There  can  be  little  doubt  that  ordination  has  been  carefully 
guarded  in  Presbyterian  Churches.  No  minister  enters  the 
Presbyterian  Churches  of  Great  Britain  without  the  laying 
on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery,  or  body  of  presbyters, 
with  a  moderator  presiding  over  them.  The  Presbyteries 
of  the  Presbyterian  Churches  of  Great  Britain,  when  the 
Episcopal  Church  was  disestablished,  had  been  ordained  with 
few  exceptions  by  episcopal  as  well  as  presbyterial  ordination. 
Those  few  had  been  ordained  by  the  Presbyteries  of  Swiss, 
French,  Dutch  and  German  Churches  in  the  same  orderly 
manner.'  The  founders  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  were 
regularly  ordained,  at  least  a  sufficient  number  of  them, 
even  according  to  the  highest  theory  of  the  episcopal  func- 
tion. 

If  these  presbyters  were  entitled  to  share  with  bishops  in 
the  ordination  of  other  presbyters,  in  accordance  with  the 
lawful  practice  of  the  ancient  Churches  and  the  Church  of 
England  and  her  daughters,  so  far  as  they  could  transmit 
authority  as  presbyters;  they  transmitted  it  to  the  presbyters 
that  they  ordained.  If  they  transmitted  anything  when 
ordaining  with  bishops,  they  transmitted  the  same  when  or- 
daining without  bishops.  What  is  lacking,  therefore,  and 
the  only  thing  that  is  lacking  in  the  ordination  of  Presbyterian 
ministers,  is  that  virtue  and  that  alone  that  comes  from  the 
diocesan  bishop's  hands.  Presbyterial  ordination,  therefore, 
may  be  incomplete,  but  it  is  an  ordination  in  part,  so  far  as 
presbyters  can  ordain.  If  ordination  belongs  to  the  bishop 
alone,  then  Presbyterian  ministers  have  not  been  ordained. 


THE  VALIDITY   OF  ORDERS  163 

If  presbyters  are  simply  the  attendants  of  the  bishop,  and 
their  participation  adds  nothing  to  the  ordination,  then 
Presbyterian  ministers  are  not  ordained.  But  if  the  partici- 
pation of  Presbyters  has  some  importance,  if  their  participa- 
tion in  ordination  communicates  any  grace  or  authority, 
then  they  may  communicate  that  grace  and  authority 
whenever  they  are  properly  organised  as  a  Presbytery  to 
act. 

It  may  be  asked,  which,  indeed,  is  the  more  valid  ordina- 
tion— that  by  presbyters  without  a  bishop,  or  that  by  bishop 
without  presbyters.  The  authority  of  the  Scriptures  can 
be  cited  for  the  former,  but  the  latter  has  been  regarded  as 
irregular,  even  in  Episcopal  Churches;  and  yet  such  irregular 
ordinations  have  taken  place  in  the  Church  of  England. 
Against  them  the  Puritans  rightly  complained.  And  yet 
these  ordinations  by  bishops  alone,  that  were  irregular,  were 
not  regarded  as  invalid.  Why,  then,  should  ordination  by 
presbyters  alone  be  regarded  as  invalid? 

The  Church  of  Scotland  is  an  independent  National  Church, 
as  truly  a  National  Church  as  the  Church  of  England,  and 
so  recognised  at  the  settlement  of  the  Revolution.  Those 
who  question  the  validity  of  the  ordination  of  the  ministry 
of  that  Church  and  her  daughters,  from  the  point  of  view  of 
the  National  Church  of  England  and  her  daughters,  have  no 
more  warrant  so  to  do  than  the  Church  of  Scotland  would 
have  to  deny  the  validity  of  the  ordination  of  the  ministry 
of  the  Church  of  England  and  her  daughters.  The  two 
Churches  were  organised  by  ecclesiastical  and  civil  law,  and 
are  on  an  equality  before  the  Law  in  Great  Britain.  The 
Church  of  England  is  Episcopal  and  the  Presbyterian  Church 
of  England  is  dissenting.  The  Church  of  Scotland  is  Pres- 
byterian, and  the  Episcopal  Church  of  Scotland  is  dissenting. 
In  the  United  States  the  daughters  of  these  two  National 
Churches  are  on  an  equality  before  the  Law;  the  one  is  as 
much  the  Church  of  the  United  States  as  the  other.  The 
two  National  Churches  have  different  theories  and  methods 
of  ordination.     The  one  is  as  regular  and  lawful  as  the  other. 


164  CHURCH  UNITY 

and  there  is  as  genuine  apostolical  succession  in  the  one  as  in 
the  other.  The  Church  of  Scotland  has  her  succession 
through  the  presbyter-bishops.  The  Church  of  England 
traces  her  succession  through  the  diocesan  bishops  and 
presbyters.  On  the  theory  of  three  orders  by  divine  right 
the  Presbyterial  ordination  is  valid  only  so  far  as  the  order 
of  presbyters  is  concerned,  and  invalid  for  the  failure  of  the 
bishop's  hands.  But  on  the  theory  that  the  bishop  is  only 
jure  humariOy  and  therefore  not  necessary  to  the  existence  of 
the  Church,  where  a  national  Church  is  organised  without 
diocesan  bishops,  ordination  by  presbyters  is  valid  and  orderly. 
All  who  do  not  accept  the  jure  divino  theory  of  the  Episco- 
pate should  agree  to  this. 

The  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  recognition  of  Presby- 
terian ordination  are  ancient  difficulties  that  we  should  feel 
bound  to  respect  and  to  remove  if  possible.  The  difficulty 
is  practically  this:  If  a  Presbyterian  should  apply  for  ad- 
mission to  the  Episcopal  Church,  it  would  be  necessary  for 
him  to  be  confirmed  and  ordained.  If  an  Episcopal  minister 
should  seek  admission  to  the  Presbyterian  Church,  it  would 
be  necessary  for  him  to  be  received  into  a  Presbytery  after 
examination  and  his  subscription  to  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession. The  difficulty  in  the  one  case  would  be  ceremonial, 
in  the  other  case  it  would  be  doctrinal  subscription.  These 
barriers  are  purely  ecclesiastical  ones.  They  are  fences  set 
up  in  the  interest  of  the  good  order  of  the  Church.  Let  us 
consider  the  additional  difficulties  the  Presbyterian  fathers 
had  in  their  way.  In  1661  two  thousand  parish  ministers 
were  thrust  out  of  their  charges  in  England  because  they 
could  not  take  the  following  oaths:  (1)  Non-resistance 
and  passive  obedience  to  bishop  and  king;  (2)  Conformity 
to  the  Liturgy;  (3)  Renouncing  the  Solemn  League  and 
Covenant  to  which  they  had  previously  sworn.  During  the 
Presbyterian  supremacy  hundreds  of  parish  priests  had  been 
removed  because  they  refused  to  swear  to  the  Covenant. 
No  one  could  be  ordained  during  that  period,  and  subse- 
quently, according  to  the  Directory,  who  did  not  take  *'the 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  165 

Covenant  of  the  three  kingdoms."  It  was  not  simply  a 
matter  of  ordination  on  either  side.  These  fences  have  been 
broken  down;   others  still  remain. 

It  would  be  possible  for  the  Presbyterian  Church  to  waive 
its  right  of  examination,  and  to  reduce  its  subscription  from 
the  Westminster  Confession  to  the  Nicene  Creed.  It  would 
be  possible  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  to  waive  the 
ceremony  of  confirmation  in  the  admission  of  members  of 
Presbyterian  Churches,  and  to  waive  the  ceremony  of  ordina- 
tion for  those  who  had  been  ordained  by  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the  Presbytery. 

I  was  informed  by  high  authority  immediately  after  the 
adjournment  of  one  of  the  Lambeth  Conferences  that  a  very 
considerable  proportion  of  that  Conference  would  be  willing 
to  recognise  Presbyterian  ordination  under  certain  conditions, 
but  that  the  time  had  not  come  to  take  definite  action.  Bishop 
Vincent  confirms  this  testimony  when  he  says: 

But  one  expedient  so  far  has  been  proposed  which  promises  to  meet 
the  difficulty  in  any  practical  way,  and  that  is  the  proposition  of  Bishop 
Charles  Wordsworth,  of  the  Scottish  Church,  made  through  a  committee 
of  the  last  Lambeth  Conference.  It  was  substantially  this:  that  we 
should  now  recognise  the  full  ministerial  standing  of  clergymen  pres- 
byterially  ordained,  providing  that  hereafter  all  their  ordinations  should 
be  by  bishops.  The  report  of  the  committee  says:  "While  the  Church 
in  her  Twenty-third  Article  lays  down  the  necessity  of  the  ministry  as  a 
sacred  order,  commissioned  by  *  those  who  have  public  authority  given 
them  in  the  congregation';  and  while  for  herself  she  has  defined  this  ex- 
pression by  insisting  in  her  own  communion  on  Episcopal  ordination, 
she  has  nowhere  declared  that  all  other  constituted  ministry  is  null  and 
void."  This  proposition  was  not  accepted  by  the  Conference,  and  prob- 
ably for  two  good  reasons,  if  for  no  other:  because  it  was  not  prepared 
to  act  so  suddenly  in  so  serious  a  matter,  and  also  because,  being  only 
a  Conference,  it  had  no  authority  so  to  act.  But  it  should  also  be  said  that 
ten  out  of  the  twelve  members  of  the  committee  voted  for  it,  and  that 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  expressed  his  "very  full  and  hearty 
sympathy  with  it."     (Address  on  Church  Unity,  pp.  3^36.) 

The  denominations  are  all  proceeding  on  a  theory  of 
ordination  in  the  Church,  which  was  suflficiently  valid  when 


166  CHURCH  UNITY 

there  was  but  one  National  Church,  which  could  impart 
authority  to  a  minister  to  exercise  the  functions  of  a  presbyter 
anywhere  in  the  land.  But  this  is  no  longer  the  case.  In 
America  an  Episcopal  ordination  does  not  give  a  minister 
as  wide  an  opportunity  of  usefulness  as  Presbyterian  ordina- 
tion; Presbyterian  ordination  does  not  give  as  wide  an  op- 
portunity of  ministerial  service  as  ordination  to  the  ministry 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Each  of  the  denomina- 
tions ordains  its  own  ministry,  and  the  ministers  thus  or- 
dained are  divided  into  different  camps. 

The  question  arises,  why  ordained  ministers  should  not  go 
from  one  denomination  to  another.  The  diflSculty  in  the 
way  is  a  lack  of  organic  union  between  the  denominations. 
If  there  were  such  an  organic  union  by  the  way  of  federation 
in  the  constitution  of  a  council  representing  the  supreme 
courts  of  all  the  denominations,  then  the  organic  union  thus 
consummated  would  be  able  to  arrange  for  the  mutual  recog- 
nition of  the  ministry  and  work  of  the  several  branches  of 
the  reunited  Church.  The  recognition  of  the  validity  of 
presbyterial  ordination  would  not  remove  the  difficulty  unless 
it  be  connected  with  federation  or  consolidation.  It  would 
remove  a  strife  of  words  and  misapprehensions  of  many 
kinds,  but  it  would  not  make  the  presbyter  of  one  denomina- 
tion into  a  presbyter  in  another  denomination.  There  are 
two  ways  of  accomplishing  this.  The  one  is  for  a  consider- 
able number  of  presbyters  to  become  presbyters  in  two  or 
more  denominations  at  the  same  time,  and  thus  become  con- 
necting links  pulling  them  together.  The  other  is  for  all 
organised  bodies  of  presbyters  to  become  members  of  a  larger 
body,  comprehending  in  one  vast  organism  all  the  ministry 
of  the  nation. 

It  should  be  recognised  by  common  consent  that  the  pres- 
byter-bishop is  the  one  essential  minister  of  Christ's  Church 
existing  in  valid  ordination  and  real  apostolic  succession  in 
all  Christian  Churches;  and  that  the  episcopal  office  is  a 
superior  jurisdiction  resting  upon  historic  right  and  not  on 
Biblical  right;  and  that  the  diaconate  is  an  order  of  assistant 


THE  VALIDITY  OF  ORDERS  167 

ministers  that  may  be  extended  into  various  subdivisions 
or  minor  orders  of  men  and  women. 

The  three  great  functions  of  the  presbyter  should  be 
recognised  and  urged  upon  the  presbyter,  and  he  should  be 
thoroughly  trained  in  them  all,  although  differences  of  gifts 
should  be  discerned;  and  great  efficiency  in  all  of  these  func- 
tions should  not  be  exacted  of  every  presbyter. 

The  Protestant  Churches  should  give  the  minor  orders  a 
better  recognition  and  the  dignity  of  consecration  or  ordina- 
tion as  do  the  more  ancient  Churches. 

The  Presbyterian,  Congregational  and  Lutheran  Churches 
should  establish  the  episcopate  as  the  much-needed  executive 
in  their  bodies.  All  Churches  should  establish  judicial 
church  courts,  and  so  distinguish  the  three  functions  of  gov- 
ernment as  in  the  best  modem  States.  If  the  various  Church 
governments  could  be  assimilated  to  the  civil  government  in 
this  regard,  many  differences  in  Church  government  would 
disappear,  or  at  least  be  removed  from  the  sphere  of  essen- 
tials to  that  of  non-essentials  and  variables. 

If  Protestants  could  go  as  far  as  this,  why  should  they  not 
go  farther  still  and  carry  the  executive  office  up  into  arch- 
bishops of  provinces,  primates  or  patriarchs  of  nations,  and 
the  Pope  as  the  universal  Bishop?  Why  not  carry  the 
legislative  function  higher  than  General  Assembly,  Con- 
vention, or  Association,  or  Conference,  or  Convocation — 
whatever  the  national  college  of  ministers  may  be  called — 
into  the  (Ecumenical  Council  of  all  Christians  meeting  at 
stated  intervals  ?  Why  not  carry  the  judicial  function  higher 
into  a  supreme  court  of  Christendom  ?  Church  Unity,  if  it 
is  to  be  carried  out  and  result  in  a  world-wide  Christian 
Church,  \vith  one  thorough-going  organisation,  must  come 
to  this.  Then  the  Unity  of  Christ's  Church  will  be  manifest, 
not  by  thin  lines  attaching  the  Churches  to  one  another  here 
and  there  at  particular  points,  or  by  the  consensus  eliminated 
by  scholars  from  the  noisy  and  confusing  dissensus  which 
envelops  the  Churches  as  a  dreary  mist  of  prejudices,  mis- 
interpretations and  misunderstandings;  but  it  will  shine  forth 


168  CHURCH  UNITY 

in  the  sunlight  of  the  Redeemer's  countenance  from  the 
very  face  and  form  of  his  bride  whom  he  has  at  last  "pre- 
sented to  himself  a  glorious  Church,  not  having  spot  or 
wrinkle  or  any  such  thing,"  but  "holy  and  without  blemish."* 

» Eph.  V,  27 


VI 

ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION 

Ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  is  the  jurisdiction  which  the 
Church  has  the  authority  to  exercise  in  the  administration  of 
government  and  discipline.  In  modern  times,  especially 
in  the  United  States  of  America,  the  government  of  the  nation 
divides  itself  into  three  channels — the  legislative,  the  judicial 
and  the  executive.  The  Christian  Church  has  not  developed 
in  its  government  so  far  as  the  modern  State.  The  three 
functions  of  government  in  Congregationalism  are  lodged  in 
one  democratic  body,  the  congregation,  a  society  of  Chris- 
tians in  covenant  relations  with  each  other. 

In  Presbyterianism,  the  three  functions  of  government  are 
lodged  in  the  Presbytery.  But  inasmuch  as  there  are  several 
grades  of  presbyteries — the  parochial  presbytery,  the  classical 
presbytery,  the  synodical  and  the  national  assemblies — we 
have  to  distinguish  between  original  jurisdiction,  which  be- 
longs to  the  classical  presbytery  in  the  case  of  a  minister, 
and  to  the  parochial  presbytery  in  the  case  of  a  layman,  and 
appellate  jurisdiction,  which  belongs  to  the  superior  and  the 
supreme  bodies.  But  all  of  these  presbyteries  alike  have 
legislative,  judicial  and  executive  functions  to  fulfil.  Any 
presbytery  may  sit  whenever  it  pleases  and  enact  legislative 
rules,  or  it  may  sit  as  a  court  and  decide  cases  of  discipline, 
or  it  may  act  as  an  executive  body  and  exercise  episcopal 
functions. 

In  the  Episcopal  Churches  the  bishop  is  the  executive, 
but  in  most  Episcopal  Churches  he  also  assumes  the  au- 
thority to  legislate  and  to  discipline  within  his  diocese.  In 
England,  the  Church  has  developed  ecclesiastical  courts  of 
a  mixed  and  altogether  unsatisfactory  character.     In   the 


170  CHURCH  UNITY 

Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country  there  is  a  rudi- 
mentary ecclesiastical  court  in  the  provision  for  the  appoint- 
ment of  courts  by  bishops,  and  also  provincial  courts  of  ap- 
peal in  questions  of  law.  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  this  country  has  separated  the  legislative  function  and  as- 
signed it  to  the  two  houses  of  the  General  Convention,  but 
the  Church  of  England  lags  behind  in  this  particular.  In 
Lutheran  Germany,  the  general  superintendent  is  the  ex- 
ecutive, and  the  consistory  combines  the  legislative  and  the 
judicial  functions.  The  Synod  is  a  development  of  recent 
years. 

This  brief  survey  makes  it  clear  that  no  ecclesiastical 
organisation  has  yet  attained  the  stage  of  development  in 
government  and  discipline  which  we  see  in  the  civil  govern- 
ment of  the  chief  modern  nations.  It  is  necessary  that  we 
should  recognise:  (1)  that  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Church  as- 
sumes a  different  form  in  the  different  ecclesiastical  organisa- 
tions in  accordance  with  their  theory  of  government  and  their 
practice  of  discipline;  and  (2)  that  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Church  shapes  itself  differently  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
civil  government  because  of  the  difference  in  the  stage  of 
development  of  government  in  the  Church  and  in  the  State. 

It  is  commonly  agreed  that  all  ecclesiastical  authority  is 
derived  from  Jesus  Christ,  the  enthroned  king  of  the  king- 
dom of  God,  the  sole  head  of  his  body,  the  Church.  It  is 
also  agreed  that  Jesus  Christ  himself  calls  his  ministry  into 
the  field.  Jesus  Christ  himself  appoints  the  earthly  govern- 
ors of  his  Church.  Those  whom  he  has  appointed,  and  no 
others,  have  authority  in  the  Church.  The  jurisdiction  of 
the  Church  springs  from  the  divine  authority  imparted  by 
King  Jesus  to  his  ministers.  The  ancient  Anabaptists,  the 
Society  of  Friends,  the  Independents,  the  Plymouth  Brethren, 
and  other  sects,  think  that  every  Christian  is  called  of  God 
to  be  a  ruler  and  minister  in  the  Church.  They  build  on 
the  universal  royal-priesthood  of  all  believers.  But  other 
bodies  of  Christians  agree  that  ecclesiastical  authority  is 
lodged  in  the  ordained  ministry  who  have  been  called  by  the 


ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION  171 

King,  Jesus  himself,  and  have  been  ordained  by  the  Church. 
The  old  Congregationalists  lodged  the  authority  in  the  paro- 
chial presbytery,  and  refused  to  recognise  any  appellate 
jurisdiction.  Each  parochial  presbytery  was  independent 
of  every  other  and  responsible  to  Christ  alone.  Presby- 
terians, however,  asserted  that  the  Church  was  one,  and  that 
there  was  appellate  jurisdiction  from  the  lower  presbyteries 
to  the  higher,  and  they  even  contemplated  an  oecumenical 
Presbytery.  With  few  exceptions,  and  those  chiefly  of  late 
date,  appellate  jurisdiction  in  all  its  stages  is  coextensive 
with  original  jurisdiction.  The  Episcopal  form  of  govern- 
ment intensifies  the  diocese  and  its  jurisdiction.  The  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  limits  episcopacy 
to  the  diocese.  There  is  no  bishop  of  the  bishops.  Ac- 
cordingly, the  diocese  is  more  independent  than  in  any  other 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  world.  There  is  no  appellate 
jurisdiction  in  executive  acts.  The  appellate  jurisdiction 
is  confined,  for  the  most  part,  to  legislative  functions.  There 
are  certain  executive  acts  which  have  to  do  with  the  whole 
Church.  There  is  no  executive  for  these  acts,  although  there 
is  a  rudimentary  one  in  the  senior  bishop.  Above  the  diocese, 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  is  essentially  Presbyterian 
in  its  organisation.  All  appellate  jurisdiction  is  lodged  in  the 
two  houses  of  the  General  Convention.  England  and  Ireland 
have  retained  the  archbishoprics  of  Canterbury,  York,  Dub- 
lin and  Armagh,  and  there  is  appellate  jurisdiction  from  the 
diocesan  to  the  metropolitan.  Wlien  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land renounced  the  appellate  jurisdiction  of  Rome,  it  became 
a  national  Church,  and  has  never  contemplated  oecumenical 
relations.  It  has  its  unity  as  a  national  Church  through  the 
Crown  only. 

The  Greek  and  Oriental  Churches  developed  the  patri- 
archate at  an  early  date,  and  the  great  historic  patriarchates 
of  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  Alexandria  and  Constantinople  were 
established.  These  had  appellate  jurisdiction  over  the  metro- 
politans. All  of  .these  patriarchates  became  subject  to  the 
Moslem  dominion,  and  were  restricted  by  that  dominion  in 


172  CHURCH  UNITY 

their  jurisdiction;  but  they  still  retained  it.  The  patri- 
archates of  Jerusalem,  Antioch  and  Alexandria,  however, 
became  subordinate  to  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  who 
is  the  head  of  the  Greek  Church.  The  orthodox  Church  of 
Russia  has  its  centre  of  unity  in  the  patriarch  of  Moscow, 
who  is  nominally  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  patriarch  of 
Constantinople  also. 

The  Western  Church  did  not  develop  the  patriarchate, 
but  the  see  of  Rome  from  the  earliest  times  has  been  supreme 
over  the  Western  Church,  and  from  early  times  the  Pope 
claimed  to  be  the  oecumenical  bishop.  The  Church  of 
Rome  is,  therefore,  the  only  oecumenical  Church  in  its 
ecclesiastical  organisation.  It  is  the  only  one  in  which  ap- 
pellate jurisdiction  is  really  exercised  over  Churches  in 
many  different  nations.  It  is  the  only  Church  in  which  the 
episcopal  organisation  has  reached  its  complete  develop- 
ment, and  in  which  appellate  jurisdiction  regulated  by  Canon 
Law  is  complete  and  thorough. 

The  organisation  of  the  Greek  and  Oriental  Churches  is 
national  organisation.  The  Episcopal  Churches  of  Eng- 
land, Sweden  and  Denmark,  the  Presbyterian  Churches  of 
Scotland,  Holland  and  several  of  the  Cantons  of  Switzer- 
land, and  the  Consistorial  Churches  of  Germany,  are  national 
Churches,  established  by  statute  law  in  those  nations.  The 
many  modern  denominations  in  Great  Britain  and  America 
have  no  national  existence,  and  th^ir  jurisdiction  is  limited 
to  those  who  voluntarily  adhere  to  them. 

The  old  Presbyterians  and  Episcopalians  agreed  with  the 
ancient  Greek,  Roman  and  Oriental  Churches  that,  in  ad- 
dition to  the  internal  call  of  Christ  to  the  ministry,  there 
must  be  an  external  call  and  ordination  by  the  Church,  in 
order  to  the  exercise  of  ecclesiastical  authority  and  jurisdic- 
tion. The  authority  of  the  Church  to  give  this  external  call 
comes  from  the  institution  of  the  ministry  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  and  depends  upon  the  transmission  of  that  authority 
in  the  Church  from  the  apostles'  times.  There  is  a  difference 
of  opinion  among  theologians,  whether  this  transmission  is 


ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION  173 

through  the  presbyters,  or  through  the  bishops,  or  through 
the  entire  ecclesiastical  organisation. 

In  the  Christian  world,  then,  there  are  numbers  of  ecclesi- 
astical organisations  which  claim  authority  from  Christ 
by  the  internal  call,  and  from  the  Church  by  the  external 
call,  which  have  some  plausible  historic  right,  and  which  ex- 
ercise ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.  The  problem,  from  the 
point  of  view  of  Church  Unity,  is  how  these  jurisdictions, 
which  are  at  present  independent,  indifferent  one  to  another, 
or  hostile,  may  be  united  in  one  jurisdiction.  There  may 
be  Christian  Unity  without  unity  of  jurisdiction,  but  there 
can  be  no  Church  Unity  without  unity  in  jurisdiction. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  claims  jurisdiction  over  the 
whole  world,  and  maintains  that  there  is  no  other  lawful 
Church  in  the  world.  This  claim  was  recognised  for  cen- 
turies by  the  nations  of  Northern  Europe,  which  are  now 
Protestant  nations.  Rome  regards  all  the  Protestants  as 
in  rebellion.  All  modern  denominations  are  usurpers. 
The  Episcopal  Church  of  England,  the  Presbyterian  Church 
of  Scotland,  the  Consistorial  Churches  of  Germany,  are  all 
alike  in  rebellion.  They  have  no  valid  ministry,  no  valid 
sacraments.  They  are  as  guilty  of  schism  as  the  sects  of 
Anabaptists  and  Quakers.  They  would  be  dealt  with  by 
the  ecclesiastical  courts  and  given  over  to  the  civil  authorities 
for  punishment,  if  the  Roman  Church  had  freedom  to  ex- 
ercise its  authority  which  it  derives  from  Jesus  Christ. 
From  the  point  of  view  of  the  ancient  Roman  Church  and 
the  ancient  Canon  Law,  and  from  the  point  of  view  of 
Christendom  before  the  Reformation,  no  other  position  can 
be  taken.  The  appellate  jurisdiction  of  the  Church  is  in 
the  Holy  Father  at  Rome.  It  was  so  recognised  by  the  Eng- 
lish, German,  Scottish,  Scandinavian  and  Swiss  nations  for 
centuries.  The  Reformers,  who  rejected  that  appellate 
jurisdiction  and  rebelled  against  that  discipline,  separated 
themselves  from  the  supreme  ecclesiastical  authority,  and 
thereby  lost  ecclesiastical  authority.  They  could  not  law- 
fully exercise  jurisdiction  in  the  Church,  or  transmit  au- 


174  CHURCH   UNITY 

thority  to  others  to  exercise  jurisdiction.  If  we  recognise 
the  external  unity  of  Christ's  Church  as  the  design  of  Christ 
himself,  and  see  that  unity  in  the  Roman  Catholic  organisa- 
tion for  centuries,  and  agree  that  the  decisions  of  the  supreme 
appellate  jurisdiction  of  the  Church  are  final,  then  we  must 
admit  that  there  is  no  legal  Church  in  Western  Europe  but 
the  Roman. 

We  build  the  right  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  in  the 
Protestant  Churches  only  upon  the  right  of  appeal  from  the 
highest  tribunal  of  the  Church  to  Christ,  the  head  of  the 
Church.  The  Reformers  refused  to  submit  to  the  appellate 
jurisdiction  of  the  Pope,  and  declined  to  desist  from  the 
exercise  of  their  ministry  at  his  bidding;  they  appealed  from 
the  Pope  to  Christ.  They  exercised  and  perpetuated  the 
functions  of  their  ministry,  although  they  were  formally 
and  technically  irregular  in  so  doing.  The  only  way  in 
which  Roman  Christianity  and  Protestant  Christianity  can 
legally  combine  is,  for  Protestant  Christianity  to  frankly  rec- 
ognise the  technical  irregularity  of  the  Reformation,  its  revolu- 
tionary and  illegal  character;  and  for  the  Roman  Church  to 
repeal  and  recall  all  its  unrighteous  discipline.  Such  a 
course  is  entirely  practicable,  for  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
has  never  taken  the  position  that  the  Church  is  infallible  in 
its  discipline.  The  efforts  of  some  Anglicans,  to  make  their 
ministerial  succession  independent  of  Rome  in  its  transmis- 
sion, results  in  grievous  error.  History  frowns  upon  the  ef- 
fort. Canon  Law  does  not  admit  of  it.  The  disciplinary 
procedure  of  Rome  was  formally  and  technically  legal  ac- 
cording to  Canon  Law.  The  only  thing  about  it  that  we 
can  successfully  challenge  is  the  matter  of  the  procedure. 
Rome  erred  in  the  grounds  and  reasons  of  the  discipline, 
and  therefore,  when  history  has  shown  that  those  grounds 
and  reasons  were  erroneous,  the  disciplinary  action  may  be 
lawfully  and  in  a  regular  manner  reversed. 

The  Reformation  was  a  revolution.  The  intolerable 
yoke  of  the  appellate  jurisdiction  of  Rome  was  thrown  off, 
and  each  Protestant  nation  reorganised  the  Church  in  the 


ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION  175 

nation  in  its  own  way.  In  England  the  metropolitans  and 
bishops  were  retained,  and  a  Metropolitan  Church  was  es- 
tablished by  Law;  in  Scotland  the  metropolitans  and  bishops 
were  discarded,  and  a  Presbyterian  Church  was  established 
by  Law;  in  Germany  the  metropolitans  and  bishops  were 
discarded,  and  Consistorial  Churches  were  established  by 
Law.  In  England  the  yoke  of  the  prelatical  bishops  be- 
came intolerable,  and  the  Puritans  struggled  until  they 
threw  it  off,  and  the  Church  of  England  was  established  as 
a  Presbyterian  Church  for  a  brief  period.  At  the  Restora- 
tion, through  a  breach  of  faith,  two  thousand  Presbyterians 
were  deprived  of  their  parish  churches  and  prohibited  from 
exercising  their  ministry,  without  trial,  and  by  arbitrary 
enactments;  and  the  prelates  became  more  tyrannical  than 
ever.  The  struggle  continued  until  the  Revolution  settle- 
ment, when  the  Presbyterians,  Congregationalists,  Baptists, 
Quakers  and  other  religious  persons  were  permitted  to  organ- 
ise themselves  as  independent  ecclesiastical  bodies. 

No  one  can  survey  the  history  of  Christ's  Church  without 
seeing  very  plainly  that  the  disruption  of  the  Church  has 
been  due  in  the  main  to  the  intolerable  tyranny  of  the  ap- 
pellate judicatories  in  the  Church.  There  can  be  no  Church 
Unity  without  unity  in  appellate  jurisdiction.  But  there 
can  be  no  unity  in  appellate  jurisdiction  unless  that  appellate 
jurisdiction  can  be  so  limited  as  to  make  it  impracticable  that 
there  shall  be  a  recurrence  of  the  intolerable  injustice  and 
tyranny  under  which  our  fathers  suffered,  and  which  still 
tibreatens  us  in  all  existing  religious  organisations  which 
have  appellate  judicatories. 

The  question  in  Church  Unity  is.  How  far  shall  we  go? 
Is  it  to  be  a  diocesan  unity,  a  national  unity,  or  an  oecumeni- 
cal unity  ?  If  there  is  to  be  unity  in  any  case,  it  must  be  in 
an  appellate  jurisdiction.  Episcopacy  finds  the  ultimate 
unity  in  the  universal  Bishop,  Presbyterianism  in  the  (Ecu- 
menical Council.  If  the  Episcopalian  says  the  historic 
episcopate  is  the  principle  of  Church  Unity,  he  cannot  in 
his  conception   of  Church  Unity  go  beyond  the  diocese; 


176  CHURCH  UNITY 

unless  he  sums  up  the  dioceses  in  a  provincial  bishop  who 
can  be  no  other  than  an  archbishop.  A  house  of  bishops, 
with  a  house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies,  is  the  Presby- 
terian system  for  a  national  organisation.  A  house  of  bishops 
is  one  house  of  a  legislative,  judicial  and  executive  body; 
but  the  executive  function  is  lodged  in  a  body,  as  truly  as  it  is 
in  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and 
not  in  a  bishop;  it  is  therefore  unepiscopal.  The  episcopal 
system  unfolds  into  an  archbishop  of  a  province,  the  patri- 
arch of  a  nation,  and  the  holy  father  of  the  world,  just  as 
truly  as  the  classical  presbytery  unfolds  and  reaches  its 
ultimate  form  in  the  (Ecumenical  Council.  Unless  we  are 
prepared  to  go  as  far  as  this,  we  cannot  think  of  oecumenical 
unity;  we  must  limit  ourselves  to  national  unity  or  diocesan 
unity. 

We  have  thus,  then,  reached  three  conclusions:  (1)  We 
must  unfold  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  much  further  in  the 
line  of  the  development  of  civil  jurisdiction;  (2)  We  must 
seek  appellate  jurisdiction  in  national  and  oecumenical 
ecclesiastical  organisations;  (3)  We  must  so  limit  the  ap- 
pellate jurisdictions  as  to  conserve  the  rights  of  individuals 
and  of  the  lower  judicatories,  and  make  it  impracticable  that 
the  appellate  judicatories  should  tyrannise  over  the  inferior 
judicatories.  To  this  last  proposition  we  shall  now  give  our 
attention,  summing  up  the  exercise  of  jurisdiction  under  the 
three  divisions,  territorial  jurisdiction,  the  subject-matter  of 
jurisdiction,  and  jurisdiction  of  persons. 

I.    TERRITORIAL   JURISDICTION 

The  theory  of  Church  government  which  is  held  more  or 
less  tenaciously  by  all  organised  Churches  is,  that  there  can 
be  but  one  lawful  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  in  one  territory. 
Where  two  or  more  claim  to  exist,  their  claims  are  unlawful. 
They  are  schismatic  and  rebellious  against  the  one  Church 
of  Christ.  In  the  New  Testament  we  find  nowhere  more 
than   one  church   in  a  city.     The  New  Testament   does 


ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION  177 

not  contemplate  a  Church  divided  into  a  number  of  inde- 
pendent organisations  in  the  same  territory.  The  Christian 
Church  asserted  its  unity  in  every  country  and  nation  in 
every  century  until  the  Reformation.  It  was  regarded  as 
intolerable  that  there  should  be  any  ecclesiastical  jurisdic- 
tion but  one  in  any  diocese  or  nation.  All  schism  was  treated 
as  rebellion  and  remorselessly  crushed.  The  Church  in  the 
Roman  Empire  asserted  its  unity  and  trampled  underfoot 
every  heresy  and  schism.  The  breaking  of  the  unity  was 
due  to  the  rise  of  the  independent  nations.  The  strife  of 
the  Papacy  against  the  national  spirit,  through  the  centuries 
prior  to  the  Reformation,  necessarily  prepared  the  way  for 
the  organisation  of  the  national  Churches  of  Northern  Eu- 
rope. But  these  national  Churches  refused  to  recognise  any 
other  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  within  the  nation  than  the 
one  established  by  law  as  the  national  Church.  Roman 
Catholics  battled  for  existence  in  Northern  Europe.  Puri- 
tans struggled  for  existence  in  Great  Britain.  Various 
sects  suffered  persecution  in  the  different  Protestant  countries. 
Only  in  quite  recent  times  has  toleration  been  granted.  Re- 
ligious equality  is  scarcely  known  outside  the  United  States 
of  America.  Even  among  us,  churchmen  of  the  different 
denominations  regard  it  as  a  necessary  evil.  There  are  few 
thinking  men  who  will  sav  that  the  ecclesiastical  situation 
in  this  country  is  desirabk  or  permanent.  The  fact  is  that 
our  theories  of  Church  government  were  evolved  in  a  time 
when  all  men  insisted  upon  the  divine  right  of  Church  gov- 
ernment and  the  exclusive  territorial  jurisdiction  of  their 
form  of  government.  We  are  all  of  us,  consciously  or  un- 
consciously, under  the  influence  of  the  territorial  principle. 
Let  us,  then,  consider  the  working  out  of  this  principle. 

The  fundamental  territorial  division  is  the  parish,  which 
embraces  all  the  people  living  within  a  certain  district.  The 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of  this  parish  is  independent  of  the 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of  other  parishes.  They  have 
their  unity  in  an  appellate  jurisdiction  of  a  classical  presby- 
tery, or  a  diocesan  bishop,  or  any  other  higher  organisation, 


178  CHURCH   UNITY 

It  has  always  been  regarded  as  unlawful  for  the  authorities 
of  one  parish  to  intrude  into  another  parish.  The  parish 
system  is  retained  wherever  there  are  Churches  established 
by  law.  There  is  considerable  friction  between  the  parish 
churches  and  the  dissenting  churches  which  occupy  the  same 
territory  in  the  larger  part  of  Great  Britain.  But  the  es- 
tablished Churches  guard  against  intrusion  of  one  parish 
into  another.  In  the  United  States,  where  there  is  no 
Church  established  by  law,  there  are  no  parish  churches. 
The  same  district  of  territory  is  occupied  by  several  different 
denominations;  and  even  in  the  same  denominations  it  is 
practically  impossible  to  prevent  one  congregation  from 
encroaching  on  the  field  of  another.  The  communicants 
of  the  congregations  are  intermingled  with  the  communi- 
cants of  other  congregations  of  the  same  denomination,  and 
territorial  jurisdiction  no  longer  exists  so  far  as  congrega- 
tions are  concerned.  Each  denomination  endeavours  to  pre- 
serve territorial  divisions  in  the  appellate  jurisdictions,  but 
with  only  partial  success.  It  is  comparatively  easy  to  do 
this  with  pastors  of  congregations,  but  it  is  difficult,  and 
in  fact  impracticable,  to  do  it  with  ministers  without  charge. 
Sometimes  it  is  impracticable  to  preserve  territorial  lines  with 
congregations.  Two  congregational  associations  coexisted 
for  many  years  in  the  same  territory  of  New  York  and  Brook- 
lyn; they  united  a  short  time  ago.  There  were  several 
presbyteries  in  New  York  and  vicinity  prior  to  the  Reunion 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  1870.  These  were  not  divided 
by  denominational  or  territorial  lines.  It  is  far  better, 
when  ministers  and  congregations  cannot  work  together  in 
harmony,  that  they  should  arrange  themselves  in  two  or 
more  local  bodies,  according  to  their  preferences,  rather 
than  undertake  the  organisation  of  two  denominations. 

The  principle  of  nonintrusion  into  presbyteries  and 
dioceses  has  been  so  overridden  as  practically  to  be  destroyed 
by  recent  events.  The  Andover  case  destroyed  it  for  Con- 
gregationalists,  the  Briggs  case  for  Presbyterians,  and  a 
recent  pastoral  letter  of  the  bishops  destroyed  it  for  Episco- 


ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION  179 

palians.  The  Law  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  prohibits 
presbyteries  from  intruding  upon  the  discipHnary  procedure 
of  other  presbyteries;  and  yet  a  large  number  of  presbyteries 
overtured  the  General  Assembly  in  1891,  condemning  the 
inaugural  of  Professor  Briggs,  and  urging  the  veto  of  his 
transfer  to  the  chair  of  Biblical  Theology.  The  General 
Assembly,  under  the  influence  of  a  panic,  voted  the  veto, 
and  condemned  him  and  the  Directors  of  Union  Seminary 
without  giving  them  a  hearing,  while  the  case  of  Professor 
Briggs  was  in  the  early  stages  of  process  before  the  presbytery 
of  New  York.  The  House  of  Bishops  intruded  upon  the 
dioceses  of  Massachusetts  and  of  Philadelphia  in  a  pastoral 
letter  which  related  to  matters  in  discussion  in  those  dioceses 
that  the  bishops  of  those  dioceses  were  alone  entitled  to 
handle.  Such  acts  of  intrusion  were  contrary  to  the  princi- 
ples of  Canon  Law  and  the  disciplinary  practice  of  the 
Church.  They  show  that  territorial  jurisdiction  has  broken 
down  in  this  country,  and  that  the  general  religious  bodies 
no  longer  respect  the  original  territorial  jurisdiction  of  in- 
ferior judicatories. 

The  interrelation  of  the  denominations  has  done  still 
more  to  destroy  territorial  jurisdiction.  In  the  holy  city, 
Jerusalem,  several  episcopal  jurisdictions  coexist.  Even  in 
the  church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  several  different  rites  of 
several  different  episcopal  jurisdictions  are  celebrated.  The 
Roman  Church  does  not  recognise  the  valid  jurisdiction  of 
any  orders  but  her  own.  From  her  point  of  view  she  can- 
not be  guilty  of  intrusion  anywhere  in  the  world.  But 
Anglicans  recognise  the  validity  of  Roman  orders.  They 
claim  to  be  the  national  Church  of  England.  The  Church 
of  England  is  established  by  law  in  England,  but  nowhere 
else  in  the  world.  It  cannot  escape  the  charge  of  intrusion, 
therefore,  when  it  erects  congregations  in  Roman  Catholic 
countries  subject  to  the  bishop  of  London.  It  seems  to  be 
rather  inconsistent,  therefore,  to  make  a  stand  against  the 
erection  of  an  American  episcopate  in  Mexico  and  an  An- 
glican episcopate  in  Madrid  or  in  Jerusalem.     It  is  only  a 


180  CHURCH  UNITY 

difference  of  degree  whether  the  bishop  of  Oxford  intrudes 
into  a  Roman  Catholic  diocese  by  the  erection  of  a  congre- 
gation in  Florence,  or  the  archbishop  of  Dublin  erects  a 
diocese  in  the  Roman  Catholic  archdiocese  of  Madrid.  In 
New  York  City  we  have  an  episcopal  diocese  of  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church  and  a  metropolitan  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  coexisting  in  the  same  territory.  The 
Roman  Catholic  does  not  recognise  the  validity  of  the  orders 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  diocese,  but  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  diocese  recognises  the  orders  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
clergy.  In  England  the  Church  of  England  is  established 
by  law,  and  so  may  charge  the  Roman  clergy  with  intrusion. 
No  such  charge  can  be  made  in  New  York,  because  there  is 
no  establishment  of  religion.  The  Episcopal  Church  has 
not  been  the  established  Church  in  that  city  since  the 
colonial  period.  There  can  be  no  question  of  intrusion 
where  the  Law  does  not  determine  territorial  right. 

The  first  Roman  Catholic  bishop  of  the  United  States 
was  Carroll,  of  Baltimore,  1789;  the  first  unquestioned  bishops 
of  the  Anglican  Order  were  White  and  Provost  of  1787. 
The  circumstances  of  the  origin  of  the  episcopate  for  this 
country  do  not  give  any  prior  right  to  either  line  of  bishops. 
The  validity  of  the  American  bishops  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  depends  on  the  validity  of  Anglican  orders. 
The  Moravians  were  prior  in  their  episcopate  to  all  others  in 
this  country,  and  they  seem  to  have  apostolic  succession  for 
their  episcopacy.  But,  in  fact,  no  valid  claim  to  jurisdiction 
can  be  founded  on  priority  of  occupation  of  a  territory.  The 
question  depends  on  which  episcopate  had  the  territorial 
right  by  ecclesiastical  Law.  Each  one  had  the  right  in  ecclesi- 
astical Law  of  establishing  missionary  bishoprics.  The  same 
ecclesiastical  right  is  exercised  in  all  missionary  lands,  so 
that  in  all  North  America,  in  Central  and  Eastern  Asia,  and 
in  all  Africa,  except  Egypt  and  Abyssinia,  where  ancient 
Churches  still  continue,  bishops  of  the  several  Episcopal 
Churches  occupy  the  same  territory  without  intrusion.  The 
result  is  inevitable  that,  with  the  progress  of  Christianity,  the 


ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION  181 

greater  part  of  the  world  will  be  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
coexisting  bishoprics.  When  we  thlis  consider  the  intrusion 
of  Rome  into  all  Protestant  lands,  and  the  intrusion  of  other 
episcopates  into  Roman  Catholic  countries,  we  see  that  the 
territorial  jurisdiction  of  the  Church  has  been  virtually 
destroyed.  It  has  been  condemned  by  the  historic  judgment 
of  God.     It  is  improbable  that  it  will  ever  be  restored. 

It  would  remove  a  great  embarrassment  from  the  advance 
toward  Church  Unity  if  territorial  jurisdiction  should  be 
discarded  altogether.  It  is  impracticable  at  present  to  at- 
tain territorial  unity.  It  is  improbable  that  it  ever  will  be 
practicable.  Ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  is  very  much  like 
marine  jurisdiction.  Each  nation  has  jurisdiction  over  its 
own  ships  on  the  sea,  but  no  jurisdiction  over  the  sea  itself. 
The  Church,  in  fact,  has  no  jurisdiction  over  territory,  but 
only  over  certain  persons  and  things  in  a  territory. 

II.    THE  SUBJECT-MATTER  OF  JURISDICTION 
1.   Doctrines 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  claims  universal  sway  as  to 
matters  of  jurisdiction  as  well  as  to  territory.  The  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Church  in  Protestant  lands  has  been  limited  more 
and  more,  until  at  present  it  is  practically  confined  to  spiritual 
things,  religion,  doctrine  and  morals.  There  are  many 
things  in  which  Church  and  State  have  what  may  be  called 
concurrent  jurisdiction:  in  marriage  and  divorce,  in  education, 
in  sabbath  observance,  and  in  the  regulation  of  vice;  but, 
in  fact,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Church  is  limited  by  the  State, 
and  is  ordinarily  confined  to  the  spiritual  side  of  these  mat- 
ters. 

Matters  of  religion  are  those  which  have  to  do  chiefly  with 
the  worship  of  God,  e.  g.,  the  order  of  worship,  ceremonies 
and  sacred  times.  These  are  matters  which  belong  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Church.  On  these  matters  the  several 
denominations   differ   exceedingly.    The   religious   conflicts 


182  CHURCH  UNITY 

in  Great  Britain  and  America  have  been  due  largely  to  the 
desire  for  uniformity  in  religion.  The  Chicago-Lambeth 
Articles  happily  limit  religious  uniformity  to  the  two  sacra- 
ments, with  the  invariable  use  of  the  elements  ordained  by 
Christ  and  the  words  of  institution.  If  we  could  limit  juris- 
diction in  matters  of  religion  to  the  terms  of  this  article,  we 
would  do  away  with  almost  all  of  the  religious  disputes  in 
the  Church  and  gain  unity  of  jurisdiction  in  matters  of  re- 
ligion. But  some  questions  arise.  Does  this  article  pro- 
pose to  limit  all  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  in  matters  of  re- 
ligion to  the  uniformity  prescribed  by  Christ  in  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  two  sacraments,  or  does  it  propose  simply  to 
limit  the  supreme  judicatory  of  a  national  Church  to  this 
jurisdiction  and  leave  a  wider  jurisdiction  in  matters  of  re- 
ligion to  lower  judicatories  ?  Is  it  proposed  that  every  con- 
gregation in  every  diocese  shall  be  independent  of  episcopal 
jurisdiction  in  all  matters  of  religion  except  this?  If  so,  it 
involves  the  union  of  Roman  Catholic,  Greek,  Protestant 
Episcopal,  Presbyterian,  Congregational,  Baptist,  Methodist, 
and  other  congregations  in  one  and  the  same  diocese  under 
one  diocesan  jurisdiction.  You  may  baptise  by  sprinkling, 
by  pouring  or  by  immersion,  as  the  local  congregation  may 
determine.  You  may  baptise  children  or  not,  as  you  please. 
You  may  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper  after  the  Roman, 
Greek,  Anglican  or  Presbyterian  manner,  without  inter- 
ference. You  may  have  the  confessional  or  you  may  re- 
ject it.  You  may  do  penance  in  public  or  you  may  repent  in 
private.  You  may  say  masses  for  the  dead;  you  may  grant 
indulgences;  you  may  bestow  extreme  unction.  You  may 
have  the  most  elaborate  ceremonies;  you  may  have  no  cere- 
mony at  all.  You  may  use  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 
or  the  liturgies  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  or  the  Lutheran 
liturgy,  or  the  Mass  Book,  or  make  public  prayer  with  no 
book  at  all.  You  may  refuse  to  say  in  public  the  Creed,  or 
the  Lord's  Prayer,  or  the  Ten  Commandments.  You  may 
worship  in  any  way  you  please,  if  only  you  celebrate  the  two 
Sacraments  with  the  use  of  the  bread  and  the  wine  and  the 


ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION  183 

water  and  the  words  of  institution;  and  no  bishop,  or  presby- 
tery, or  convention,  or  conference,  or  any  other  judicatory  shall 
have  any  jurisdiction  over  any  of  these  matters  of  religion. 
We  do  not  know  how  far  this  limitation  of  jurisdiction 
has  been  thought  out  by  the  bishops  into  its  practical  de- 
tails. It  is  doubtful  whether  they  would  deem  it  wise  to 
permit  every  congregation  to  use  such  unlimited  discretion 
as  this.  It  would  be  intolerable  for  some  congregations  to 
feel  even  a  limited  responsibility  for  the  disorderly  practices 
of  other  congregations  in  the  same  diocese.  It  is  probable 
that  the  Chicago-Lambeth  definition  of  what  is  essential  in 
matters  of  religion  should  be  taken  as  limiting  the  supreme 
judicatory  of  the  national  Church,  so  that  it  should  not  inter- 
fere with  any  inferior  judicatory  which  was  faithful  to  this 
article  relating  to  the  Sacraments,  and  so  that  it  should 
recognise  the  jurisdiction  of  the  lower  judicatories  as  more 
extensive  than  that  of  the  supreme  judicatory.  There  should 
be  a  gradual  limitation  of  jurisdiction  in  matters  of  religion 
as  one  ascends  from  the  lowest  judicatory  to  the  highest. 
For  those  congregations  which  use  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  there  is  needed  a  judicatory  to  have  jurisdiction  over 
its  use.  There  are  in  the  Episcopal  Church  parties  which 
differ  in  their  ideas  of  worship.  Each  one  of  these  parties 
might  by  elective  affinity  be  organised  in  a  convention 
under  a  bishop.  Instead  of  increasing  the  number  of  bishops 
by  territorial  restrictions,  the  increase  might  be  by  divisions 
of  dioceses  in  accordance  with  the  subject-matter  of  juris- 
diction. We  might  have  in  New  York  City  not  only  a  bishop 
of  the  Roman  Order,  a  bishop  of  the  Anglican  Order  and  a 
bishop  of  the  Moravian  Order,  but  also  other  bishops  acting 
as  the  executives  of  dioceses  constituted  no  longer  in  accord- 
ance with  a  territorial  jurisdiction,  which  is  really  impractica- 
ble, but  in  accordance  with  the  elective  affinity  of  the  con- 
gregations. These  dioceses  might  retain  their  independence 
under  a  common  bishop  by  a  constitutional  limitation  of  his 
jurisdiction,  or,  if  this  union  could  not  be  consummated, 
these  dioceses  might  be  combined  in  an  archdiocese  under 


184  CHURCH  UNITY 

a  metropolitan,  limited  in  his  jurisdiction  to  the  matters  de- 
fined in  the  Chicago-Lambeth  Articles. 

The  divisions  of  Christendom,  however,  have  originated 
chiefly  from  differences  in  matters  of  Faith.  The  definitions 
of  the  Faith  by  superior  and  supreme  judicatories  have  ex- 
cluded those  ministers  or  dioceses  or  provinces  or  patriarch- 
ates which  could  not  subscribe  to  these  definitions.  In  the 
evolution  of  the  Faith  of  Christ's  Church,  every  stage  has  re- 
sulted in  the  separation  or  exclusion  of  those  who  could  not 
make  the  evolution.  The  Faith  of  the  ancient  Church  was 
defined  in  the  primitive  Creeds.  The  great  councils  de- 
cided the  Trinitarian  and  Christological  controversies,  and 
by  their  supreme  jurisdiction  cut  off  the  adherents  of  Arian- 
ism  and  Nestorianism  and  other  minor  heresies.  The  Greek 
and  Roman  Churches  condemned  each  other  as  heretical, 
and  the  East  separated  from  the  West.  At  the  Reformation, 
Northern  Europe  separated  from  Southern  Europe;  but 
every  effort  to  construct  a  united  Protestant  Church  failed, 
owing  to  international  jealousies  and  rivalries.  Therefore 
the  Roman  Church  declared  its  Faith  at  the  Council  of  Trent, 
and  each  national  Protestant  Church  declared  its  Faith  in 
national  confessions  and  catechisms.  An  effort  was  made 
to  unite  all  Lutherans  about  the  Form  of  Concord,  and  all 
Calvinists  about  the  decrees  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  but  these 
efforts  failed.  The  Westminster  Confession  was  designed 
to  take  the  place  of  the  separate  national  confessions  of  the 
three  nations  of  Great  Britain,  but  this  design  was  not  ac- 
compb'shed.  All  of  these  later  confessions  became  Confes- 
sions of  the  Faith  of  parties  and  denominations.  The 
Articles  of  Religion  became  the  legal  statement  of  the  Faith 
of  the  Church  of  England.  The  Westminster  Confession 
became  the  legal  confession  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  and 
displaced  the  original  Scottish  Confessions.  Ministers  were 
now  obliged  by  Law  to  subscribe  to  these  confessions,  and 
these  mapped  out  an  extensive  area  of  jurisdiction  for  ecclesi- 
astical bodies  in  matters  of  faith. 

Doctrinal  jurisdiction  depends  upon  the  definitions  of  the 


ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION  185 

creed  or  confession  on  the  one  side,  and  upon  the  terms  of 
subscription  on  the  other.     Several  questions  now  arise. 

Do  these  confessions  restrict  the  Church  in  its  jurisdiction, 
or  do  they  restrict  the  minister  in  his  Hberty,  or  do  they  re- 
strict both  Church  and  minister?  Subscription  was  forced 
on  the  Church  of  Scotland  by  the  Parliament  of  Scotland 
in  order  to  restrict  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Church  of  Scotland. 
That  is,  any  man  who  subscribed  to  the  Confession  and  was 
faithful  to  its  articles  was  free  as  to  any  matters  not  defined 
in  the  Confession.  But  the  older  view  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  was,  that  the  Creeds  restricted  the  minister,  and  that 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Church  was  unrestricted.  The  Church 
had  jurisdiction  over  other  matters  also.  It  was  its  right  to 
define  any  matter  of  faith  that  was  in  dispute.  The  Decisions 
of  the  Church  were  a  restriction  to  the  minister,  telling  him 
what  the  Church  had  already  said.  This  seems  to  be  the 
historic  position  of  the  Church  of  England  also.  The  Ameri- 
can Churches,  with  written  constitutions,  follow  in  principle 
the  method  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  influenced  doubt- 
less by  the  method  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  But,  in  practice,  ecclesiastical  bodies  refuse  to  be 
restrained  by  constitutional  barriers.  They  decide  any 
question  raised  before  them  whether  they  have  the  right  so 
to  do  or  not. 

Does  subscription  bind  to  all  matters  stated  in  the  Con- 
fession, or  only  to  the  essential  and  necessary  articles  ?  The 
Adopting  Act  of  the  American  Presbyterian  Church  took  the 
latter  position,  but  it  has  not  been  adhered  to  in  later  decisions 
of  General  Assemblies,  and  this  is  not  the  usage  of  other 
ecclesiastical  bodies. 

Does  subscription  bind  to  the  express  statements  only,  or 
to  all  logical  deductions  also  ?  If  we  take  the  latter  position, 
it  would  seem  that  every  logical  deduction  made  by  decision 
becomes  an  additional  confessional  statement.  Can  a 
minister  be  bound  to  such  a  logical  deduction  before  it  has 
been  made  by  the  decision  of  the  supreme  judicatory  ?  Can 
the  supreme  judicatory  make  such  an  addition  to  the  Faith 


186  CHURCH  UNITY 

of  the  Church?  All  of  these  questions  have  arisen  in  the 
Presbyterian  communion  in  recent  cases.  The  General 
Assembly  has  interpreted  the  Westminster  Confession  by 
so-called  logical  deduction,  and  has  condemned  two  ministers 
for  heresy  for  teaching  contrary  to  such  pretended  logical 
deductions.  Professor  Henry  P.  Smith  made  the  point  that 
his  teaching  complained  of  was  prior  to  the  definition  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  such  pretended  logical  deduction,  and 
that,  as  applied  to  him,  it  was  ex  'post  facto;  but  the  General 
Assembly  decided  against  him.  It  is  claimed  that  the*  de- 
cisions of  the  General  Assembly  in  the  Smith  and  Briggs  cases 
are  as  obligatory  as  the  Confession  itself.  It  is  altogether 
probable  that  other  supreme  judicatories  would  take  the 
same  large  view  of  their  powers,  by  majority  vote  should  party 
lines  be  drawn.  Majorities  in  party  strife  always  break 
through  legal  forms  and  constitutional  barriers. 

Does  subscription  bind  a  man  in  his  private  opinions  as 
well  as  in  his  official  utterances  ?  Is  he  obliged  to  teach  the 
whole  Confession,  or  may  he  avoid  such  parts  of  it  as  he 
doubts  or  misbelieves?  Must  he  adhere  to  their  forms  of 
statement,  or  only  use  them  in  substance  in  other  forms  of 
statement  ?  Is  he  simply  restrained  from  teaching  anything 
that  contradicts  the  Confession  and  allowed  liberty  in  other 
respects,  as  to  speech  on  the  one  hand  and  silence  on  the 
other?  Anthony  Tuckney,  one  of  the  chief  authors  of  the 
Westminster  Confession  and  Catechisms,  writes  to  Which- 
cote  that  the  Westminster  Confession  was  designed  as  a 
public  confession:  "In  the  Assembly,  I  gave  my  vote  with 
others  that  the  Confession  of  Faith  put  out  by  authority 
should  not  be  either  required  to  be  sworn  or  subscribed  to, 
we  having  been  burnt  on  the  hand  in  that  kind  before,  but 
so  as  not  to  be  publicly  preached  or  written  against."  ^  But 
in  the  practice  of  Presbyterian  Churches  the  views  of  the 
Westminster  divines  have  not  been  followed.  In  other  ec- 
clesiastical bodies  there  has  been  no  final  determination  of 

*  Eight  Letters  of  Dr.  Antony  Tuckney  and  Dr.  Benjamin  Whichcote, 
1753;   see  also  Briggs,  American  Presbyterianism,  pp.  200  f. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION  187 

these    questions.     The    stricter   view    has    been    ordinarily 
followed  by  the  judicatories. 

Does  the  Creed  or  Article  of  Faith  fix  the  Faith  of  the 
Church  so  that  there  shall  be  no  further  development? 
Does  it  mean  that  there  is  to  be  no  further  development  in 
the  Faith  of  the  Church,  either  in  substance  or  mode  of  state- 
ment? Certainly  no  body  which  constructed  confessions 
ever  thought  so.  Either  the  Church  has  a  sacred  deposit 
which  it  cannot  decrease  or  diminish,  or  its  doctrine  is  capa- 
ble of  development.  If  it  has  a  sacred  deposit,  no  ecclesiasti- 
cal body  has  any  authority  to  change  that  deposit  by  intro- 
ducing new  doctrines  into  the  area  of  definition.  But  who 
shall  define  that  deposit  ?  Has  it  ever  been  defined  ?  What 
authority  has  the  Church  of  the  third  century  to  define  this 
deposit,  which  is  not  also  in  the  Church  of  the  twentieth 
century?  If  the  Apostles'  Creed  defines  that  deposit,  what 
authority  is  there  in  the  more  elaborate  statements  of  the 
Nicene  Creed  ?  What  authority  had  the  later  Church  to  en- 
large the  original  Nicene  Creed?  If  the  Church  could  go 
on  enlarging  its  Creed  through  the  third  and  fourth  centuries, 
why  not  in  the  centuries  since  the  fourth?  The  Roman 
Church  claims  that  the  Council  of  Trent  niade  a  further 
definition  of  the  original  deposit.  But  when  we  have  gone 
as  far  as  this,  then  the  deposit  is  simply  the  original  germ 
out  of  which  the  whole  immense  system  of  ecclesiastical 
dogma  and  ritual  has  developed.  You  have,  then,  virtually 
abandoned  the  theory  of  an  original  deposit  altogether,  and 
recognised  that  the  Faith  of  Christ's  Church  is  a  develop- 
ment from  an  original  germ  or  germs  of  doctrine.  The 
form  changes,  but  the  substance  is  eternal.  If  the  Faith  of 
the  Church  is  capable  of  development,  then  we  must  hold 
either  that  the  ecclesiastical  body  which  constructed  the 
Creed  or  Articles  of  Faith  attained  the  goal  of  the  develop- 
ment of  the  Church,  or  else  that  the  development  continues, 
and  a  later  body  has  the  same  right  to  define  dogmas  as  the 
earlier  body.  Any  ecclesiastical  body,  therefore,  which  pro- 
poses to  define  the  Faith  of  the  Church,  and  check  the  further 


188  CHURCH  UNITY 

expansion  of  it,  arrogates  to  itself  an  authority  over  both  the 
past  and  the  future;  it  assumes  to  improve  upon  the  defini- 
tion of  the  past,  and  asserts  that  no  improvement  can  be 
made  on  its  own  definitions. 

Is  the  interpretation  of  Creeds  and  Confessions  to  be  re- 
garded as  fixed  or  as  variable  ?  If  you  say  variable,  there 
must  be  such  limitation  to  variability  as  will  forbid  incon- 
sistency between  the  statements  and  the  interpretations. 
A  judicatory,  on  the  one  hand,  cannot  vary  the  interpreta- 
tions so  as  to  evacuate  the  statement  of  its  original  meaning 
and  give  it  a  new  and  different  meaning.  No  more  can  an 
individual.  But  where  there  are  variant  interpretations  in 
the  way  of  logical  deductions,  all  such  must  be  regarded  as 
legitimate.  It  is  improper  for  the  supreme  judicatory  to 
make  the  Creed  more  rigid  by  limiting  its  interpretation  to 
specific  deductions,  when  other  deductions  are  historically 
legitimate.  Confessions  are,  in  the  larger  part  of  their  state- 
ments, compromises  framed  to  admit  of  more  than  one  inter- 
pretation. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  say  interpretation  is  fixed,  where 
shall  we  fix  the  fixture?  Shall  we  find  it  in  the  traditional 
interpretation?  This  is  the  easiest  and  therefore  the  com- 
mon method  in  Protestantism.  But  tradition  is  the  reverse 
of  fixed.  A  traditional  interpretation  is  continually  chang- 
ing, adapting  the  statement  to  new  cases,  or  to  new  forms 
of  old  cases,  depressing  one  statement,  enhancing  another 
statement,  and  so  entirely  changing  the  proportions  and  re- 
lations of  the  original  definitions.  The  traditional  interpre- 
tation usually  does  not  give  the  original  meaning.  Shall 
we  find  it  in  the  opinions  of  the  supreme  judicatory  ?  These 
will  be  essentially  the  same  as  the  traditional,  for  the  simple 
reason  that  the  majority  of  ecclesiastical  bodies  is  always 
controlled  by  traditional  opinions.  The  Roman  Catholic 
principle  is  to  seek  it  in  the  Fathers  of  the  Church.  This  is 
far  safer  than  the  traditional  principle  which  has  prevailed 
in  modem  Protestantism,  only  it  is  still  indefinite.  One 
asks,  which  Fathers  ?    And  who  shall  interpret  tlie  Fathers  ? 


ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION  189 

You  may  misinterpret  them  by  your  traditions  with  greater 
ease  than  you  can  the  Creeds  or  Articles  of  Faith.  The  only 
safe  principle  is  the  historic  one — to  interpret  the  Symbols  of 
Faith  by  the  intention  of  their  authors. 

The  denominations  have  unconsciously  drifted  from  their 
Confessions  into  traditional  opinions  which  envelop  the  Con- 
fessions and  the  Creeds,  and  are  the  Faith  of  the  Church  to 
them,  and  it  cannot  be  otherwise.  We  are  all  hurried  along 
in  the  tide  of  opinion  of  our  age,  and  our  environment  con- 
trols our  opinions  and  practice.  The  majority  simply  drift. 
If  they  are  in  the  stream  of  tradition,  that  is  to  them  the  evi- 
dence of  antiquity.  They  little  know  how  far  the  stream 
has  carried  them  from  their  fathers.  No  man  can  really 
know  whether  he  truly  subscribes  to  any  Creed  or  Confession 
until  he  has  studied  the  writings  of  the  men  who  composed 
it,  and  has  investigated  its  sources  and  the  mode  of  its  con- 
struction. It  matters  little  what  our  Creed  or  Confession 
may  be,  if  the  supreme  judicatory  may  read  into  it  any- 
thing it  pleases.  There  is  nothing  gained  by  giving  up  the 
Westminster  Confession  and  the  Articles  of  Religion,  and 
falling  back  on  the  Aposdes'  Creed  and  the  Nicene  Creed, 
unless  at  the  same  time  we  may  restrict  the  interpretation 
of  that  Creed  to  its  original  historic  sense,  to  be  determined 
by  a  court  of  historical  scholars,  and  not  by  a  General  As- 
sembly or  a  House  of  Bishops  composed  of  all  sorts  and 
conditions  of  men. 

It  was  a  very  important  step  toward  Church  Unity  when 
the  Chicago-Lambeth  Declaration  limited  the  faith  of  the 
reunited  Church  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  Nicene  Creed 
and  the  Apostles'  Creed;  but  it  is  necessary  to  know  whether 
the  Creeds  are  to  be  interpreted  so  as  to  comprehend  the  un- 
folding of  their  meaning  in  the  decisions  of  the  four  great 
Councils  of  the  undivided  Church,  in  the  Te  Deum,  in  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  and  the  Articles  of  Religion.  It  is 
necessary  to  first  fix  the  Creeds  and  know  whether  we  are 
to  subscribe  to  them  in  their  original  historical  form,  or  in 
their  later  Roman  and  Anglican  adaptations,  before  we  can 


190  CHURCH  UNITY 

agree  upon  a  fixed  interpretation  of  these  Creeds.  It  is 
necessary  to  know  whether,  when  we  accept  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures as  the  Word  of  God,  we  must  accept  with  them  anti- 
quated interpretations  of  prophecy  and  old-fashioned  ex- 
planations of  the  Gospel  mysteries.  The  essence  of  the 
whole  question  as  to  Creeds  and  Confessions  is  in  the  terms 
of  subscription. 

The  Christians  of  America  will  hardly  agree  to  the  doctrinal 
basis  of  the  Chicago-Lambeth  declarations  until  they  know 
whether  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Episcopate  is  to  be  limited  to 
these  articles,  or  whether  these  articles  are  simply  doors 
through  which  they  may  enter,  to  find  themselves  subject 
to  any  doctrinal  deduction  the  bishops  may  make  from 
them.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  supreme  judicatory  in  which 
Church  Unity  is  reached,  should  be  strictly  limited  in 
matters  of  doctrine,  not  only  to  the  Creeds,  but  to  the  ex- 
press statements  of  the  Creeds  in  their  original  form;  and 
not  only  this,  but  to  those  express  statements  as  interpreted, 
not  by  the  judicatory  itself,  but  by  the  historic  interpretation 
of  the  authors  of  the  Creeds,  to  be  ascertained  by  historical 
scholars.  In  our  acceptance  of  Holy  Scripture  as  the  Word 
of  God,  we  do  not  relinquish  our  right  as  scholars  to  study 
them  with  all  the  help  of  modem  Criticism.  We  do  not  pro- 
pose to  relinquish  the  freedom  of  scholarship  either  to  the 
timidity  of  the  ignorant  or  to  the  policy  of  time-serving 
ecclesiasticism.  The  cause  of  God  will  prosper  much  better 
in  a  divided  Church,  where  freedom  of  historic  research  and 
Biblical  Criticism  prevails,  than  in  a  reunited  Church  in 
which  a  supreme  ecclesiastical  court  may,  by  a  majority  vote 
of  mere  traditionalists,  attempt  to  fix  the  interpretation  of 
Scriptures  and  Creeds  and  other  historical  documents.  We 
have  one  such  supreme  judicatory  in  Rome,  guarded  by 
venerable  Canon  Law,  and  independent  of  civil,  social, 
provincial  and  ecclesiastical  influences,  that  has  over  and 
over  again  lost  the  confidence  of  the  world  by  its  unjust  and 
iniquitous  decisions.  Christendom  desires  no  other,  and 
will  have  no  other,  unless  its  powers  may  be  so  restricted  by  a 


ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION  191 

constitution  that  it  may  be  altogether  impartial,  just  and  true 
in  its  decisions. 

There  are  some  who  will  continue  to  cling  to  the  West- 
minster Confession;  others  to  the  decrees  of  the  Council 
of  Trent;  others  to  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  and  others 
to  Luther's  Catechism.  Let  them  retain  their  darlings  and 
organise  themselves  in  presbyteries  and  councils,  and  such 
other  ecclesiastical  bodies  as  they  may  prefer,  in  order  to 
conserve  their  beloved  opinions.  What  we  need,  in  order 
to  attain  Church  Unity,  is  that  they  shall  unite  with  all  other 
Christians  in  a  supreme  jurisdiction,  which  shall  be  so  limited 
that  it  will  not,  on  the  one  hand,  restrict  the  freedom  to  re- 
tain and  advocate  those  confessions  and  catechisms,  or  any 
other  statements  of  doctrine  which  may  be  framed;  nor,  on 
the  other  hand,  impose  upon  subordinate  jurisdictions  any- 
thing more  than  the  original  historical  interpretation  of  the 
express  statements  of  the  Creed  adopted  by  all. 

2.   Morals 

The  Chicago-Lambeth  Declaration  of  Unity  does  not 
reserve  to  the  reunited  Church  any  right  of  jurisdiction  in 
matters  of  morals.  Is  it  proposed  that  matters  of  morals 
shall  be  outside  of  the  sphere  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction, 
or  that  these  matters  shall  belong  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
lower  judicatories?  It  certainly  cannot  be  designed  that 
all  matters  of  morals  shall  be  regarded  as  outside  the  range 
of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  on  the  one  hand,  or,  on  the  other, 
that  the  jurisdiction  of  the  supreme  judicatory  shall  be  un- 
limited in  these  matters.  The  Ten  Commandments  and  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  the  bases  of  the  instruction  of  the  Church 
and  incorporated  with  the  Creeds  in  all  the  Liturgies,  seem 
to  have  been  overlooked  by  the  bishops;  but  I  think  that 
they  were  quite  right.  Morals  are  not  for  the  decision  of 
the  supreme  judicatory,  but  for  the  lower  judicatories. 
Rome  claims  for  the  Pope  the  authority  to  speak  the  in- 
fallible decision   when   he   is   summoned    to  judgment  epc 


192  CHURCH  UNITY 

cathedra  in  matters  of  doctrine  and  morals.  But  the  voice 
of  Protestantism  should  reserve  morals  to  the  conscience  of 
the  individual  and  the  jurisdiction  of  lower  ecclesiastical 
courts. 

Let  us  take  into  consideration  three  moral  questions  as 
specimens — Divorce,  Sabbath  Observance  and  Temperance. 
These  questions  belong  to  the  State  as  well  as  to  the  Church. 
There  is  concurrent  jurisdiction  here  of  civil  courts  and  eccle- 
siastical courts.  Here  is  danger  of  collision  in  which  the 
ecclesiastical  court  will  surely  be  worsted.  The  Roman 
Church  takes  a  decided  position  against  divorce,  but  it  can- 
not prevent  laws  by  the  States  granting  divorces  which  Rome 
refuses  to  recognise.  The  Westminster  Confession  contains 
a  chapter  on  marriage  and  divorce.  More  than  one  minister 
has  been  suspended  or  deposed,  for  marriage  to  a  deceased 
wife's  sister;  and  yet  the  supposed  prohibition  in  Levitical 
law  is  a  misinterpretation;  and  even  if  it  were  a  Levitical 
law,  Levitical  marriage  laws  are  no  more  binding  on  the 
Church  of  Christ  than  the  Levitical  prohibitions  of  wearing 
mixtures  of  wool  and  linen,  or  ploughing  with  an  ox  and  an 
ass  harnessed  together.  Most  Protestant  denominations 
have  removed  this  erroneous  restriction,  although  Anglican 
bishops  still  persist  in  opposing  such  marriage,  even  after 
the  repeal  of  the  law  by  Parliament.  The  right  of  marriage 
and  divorce  is  determined  by  the  laws  of  the  State.  The 
Church  should  beware  of  conflicting  legislation.  There  can 
be  no  reunion  of  Christendom,  unless  Christians,  with  different 
views  of  marriage  and  divorce,  may  freely  organise  them- 
selves under  the  jurisdiction  of  lower  judicatories,  that  will 
recognise  their  views  of  marriage  and  divorce,  and  that  will 
guard  them  from  the  intrusion  of  conflicting  opinions. 

It  is  impossible  to  unite  in  the  matter  of  Sabbath  obser- 
vance. The  Puritan  view  is  very  different  from  the  Anglican, 
the  Lutheran  and  the  Roman.  The  Puritan  cannot  force 
his  opinion  on  the  rest  of  the  world.  The  only  thing  the 
Puritan  can  do  is  to  keep  the  Sabbath  in  his  own  way,  and 
organise  societies  for  Sabbath  observance  after  his  ideals. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION  193 

He  cannot  make  the  Puritan  theory  of  the  Sabbath  the  law 
for  the  United  States,  still  less  for  the  Christian  world. 

It  is  impossible  to  unite  in  matters  of  Temperance.  The 
Methodist  will  hardly  compel  all  others  to  his  views  of  total 
abstinence  so  as  to  make  it  a  matter  of  ecclesiastical  juris- 
diction. The  only  thing  that  can  be  done  is  for  those  who 
believe  in  total  abstinence  to  organise  societies  for  that  pur^ 
pose.  Those  ecclesiastical  bodies  which  bind  the  ministry 
and  people  to  this  theory  sin  grievously  against  Church  Unity. 

We  might  illustrate  by  other  matters,  but  these  are  suf- 
ficient to  show  that  jurisdiction  in  morals  must  be  strictly 
limited.  The  supreme  judicatory  should  not  have  any  juris- 
diction in  morals.  The  original  jurisdiction  belongs  to  the 
congregation  in  case  of  a  layman,  and  to  the  presbytery  or 
diocesan  in  case  of  a  minister.  We  have  to  distinguish  between 
crime,  vice  and  sin.  Crime  and  vice  are  in  the  province  of 
courts  of  original  jurisdiction,  and  there  should  be  appellate 
courts  to  correct  errors  in  law.  But  questions  of  morals 
ought  not  to  go  to  the  supreme  judicatories.  It  is  most  im- 
portant to  guard  the  conscience  of  the  individual  and  the 
freedom  of  Christian  love.  Ecclesiastical  decisions  in  morals 
tend  to  legalism,  and  legalism  to  a  Pharisaism  which  is  es- 
sentially Antichristian. 

III.    JURISDICTION  OF  PERSONS 

The  most  important  and  practical  side  of  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction  is  jurisdiction  over  persons.  The  Roman 
Church  claims  universal  jurisdiction  over  persons.  The 
national  Churches  of  Protestantism  claimed  universal  juris- 
diction over  persons  within  the  nation.  All  the  persecution 
and  intolerance  of  ancient  and  modem  times  originated  from 
this  claim.  In  the  United  States,  and  in  Europe  to  a  great  ex- 
tent at  present,  it  is  commonly  agreed  that  the  jurisdiction 
of  a  Church  is  limited  to  the  persons  who  voluntarily  adhere 
to  it.  After  this  limitation  has  been  made,  questions  arise 
which  are  of  great  importance  with  reference  to  Church  Unity. 


194  CHURCH  UNITY 

The  most  comprehensive  question  is,  Is  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Church  over  persons  total  or  partial?  We  should 
recognise  that  it  is  partial  and  not  total.  The  jurisdiction  of 
a  Church  over  a  person  should  be  limited  to  the  subject-matter 
of  jurisdiction;  it  should  not  intrude  upon  his  liberty  in  other 
matters.  The  Church  should  not  intrude  upon  his  civil 
rights  and  duties.  The  Church  should  not  intrude  upon  his 
social  and  domestic  relations.  It  should  not  interfere  with 
his  military  service,  with  his  club  life,  with  his  relations  to 
secret  societies,  with  his  amusements  or  with  his  business, 
or  with  any  one  of  a  thousand  matters  in  which  he  may  en- 
gage, unless  he  transgress  the  lines  of  jurisdiction  which  the 
Church  has  reserved  to  itself.  It  is  well  known  that  the  ex- 
isting organisations  intrude  upon  all  of  these  relations.  The 
Roman  Catholics  and  the  Reformed  Presbyterians  intrude 
upon  civil  duties.  The  Roman  Catholics  and  the  United 
Presbyterians  intrude  upon  secret  societies.  The  Metho- 
dists and  Puritans  intrude  upon  domestic  affairs  and  amuse- 
ments. All  such  intrusion,  and  any  other  like  intrusion, 
beyond  the  lines  of  the  limited  subject-matter  of  superior 
and  supreme  jurisdiction,  must  be  debarred  if  there  is  to  be 
Church  Unity.  If  a  man  or  a  minister  assume  vows  which 
subject  him  to  more  extensive  jurisdiction,  it  should  be  in 
inferior  judicatories.  The  judicatories  in  which  the  unity 
of  the  Church  is  fixed  should  not  intrude  in  these 
matters. 

The  jurisdiction  over  persons  should  not  be  everlasting. 
A  man  or  a  woman  may  assume  strict  vows  of  obedience  in 
a  very  extensive  jurisdiction,  and  should  be  held  to  these 
vows  so  long  as  either  remains  under  that  inferior  judicatory. 
But  no  man  or  woman  should  assume  lifelong  vows.  There 
should  be  freedom  to  separate  from  one  inferior  judicatory 
and  to  unite  with  another  whenever  it  seem  best  to  do  so, 
provided  pecuniary  and  personal  engagements  are  filled,  and 
the  separation  is  made  in  an  honourable,  upright  and  courte- 
ous manner.  Irrevocable  vows  are  inconsistent  with  per- 
sonal liberty  and  with  Church  Unity  as  well.    There  are 


ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION  195 

many  evils  in  the  Church,  both  for  laymen  and  ministers, 
which  result  from  irrevocable  vows.  They  are  an  inheri- 
tance of  Mediaevalism.  If  a  layman  has  made  a  mistake 
in  his  ecclesiastical  connection,  he  should  be  free  to  cor- 
rect that  mistake  without  excommunication  or  lesser  forms 
of  ecclesiastical  discipline.  If  a  minister  has  made  a  mis- 
take and  has  changed  his  opinions,  he  ought  to  be  free  to 
change  his  ecclesiastical  relations  without  degradation. 
There  cannot  be  Church  Unity  until  such  changes  are  recog- 
nised as  lawful  and  proper. 

The  question  now  arises  how  far  ecclesiastical  jurisdic- 
tion is  exclusive  of  other  jurisdiction.  Before  the  Reforma- 
tion the  clergy  were  under  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the 
Church.  But,  in  the  modem  States,  the  Church  and  the 
State  have  concurrent  jurisdiction  over  persons  each  in  its 
own  sphere.  In  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  there  are 
jurisdictions  of  monastic  orders  which  are  distinct  from  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  diocesan.  In  Protestant  Churches  min- 
isters submit  themselves  freely  to  other  jurisdictions  than 
those  of  the  Church  and  the  State  in  relations  which  do  not 
conflict  with  civil  and  ecclesiastical  duties.  A  man  may 
give  an  inferior  jurisdiction  the  exclusive  authority  over  him, 
but  few  men  will  in  these  times  assume  such  vows  of  sub- 
mission. The  judicatories  in  which  unity  is  to  be  found 
certainly  cannot  be  so  exclusive. 

The  question  comes  next  whether  it  is  necessary  that  a 
man  should  be  under  only  one  jurisdiction  in  ecclesiastical 
affairs.  This  is  the  common  opinion,  but  there  are  numer- 
ous exceptions.  A  Presbyterian  minister  may  be  a  member 
of  a  Congregational  Church,  and  so  subject  to  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  a  presbytery  of  the  Presbyterian  denomination,  and 
at  the  same  time  to  a  congregation  of  the  Congregational  de- 
nomination. He  might  be  in  good  standing  in  the  one  and 
at  the  same  time  heretical  in  the  other.  There  is  no  law 
to  prevent  a  Presbyterian  minister  from  remaining  a  Pres- 
byterian minister  and  yet  at  the  same  time  becoming  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  congregation  by  accepting 


196  CHURCH  UNITY 

confirmation.  It  is  possible,  as  things  now  are,  for  a  min- 
ister to  be  in  three  or  more  denominations  at  the  same  time. 
Why  not?  It  is  quite  true  that  complications  might  arise; 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  great  benefits  might  be  conferred. 
There  are  many  cases  in  which  it  would  be  of  advantage 
to  ministers  and  laymen  to  be  in  two  or  more  ecclesiastical 
jurisdictions  at  the  same  time.  My  father  served  as  trustee 
of  three  congregations  in  three  different  denominations  at 
the  same  time.  He  fulfilled  his  duties  in  all,  and  was  re- 
peatedly re-elected  in  them  all.  If  it  was  practicable  in  the 
management  of  the  temporal  affairs  of  the  congregation, 
why  not  in  the  spiritual?  It  is  quite  as  easy  for  a  man  to 
serve  as  elder  or  deacon  or  vestryman  in  three  congregations 
as  to  serve  as  trustee.  There  are  numerous  instances  in 
which  men  of  influence  reside  part  of  the  year  in  the  city  and 
part  of  the  year  in  the  country.  In  the  city  they  worship  in 
one  denomination,  in  the  country  in  another.  They  fulfil 
all  their  religious  duties  equally  in  both.  Why  should  they 
not  be  enrolled  as  members  and  serve  as  church  officers  in 
both?  Ministers  are  often  called  upon  to  minister,  on  the 
frontier,  to  two  or  more  congregations  of  the  same  denom- 
ination; why  not  to  two  or  more  congregations  of  different 
denominations?  There  are  thousands  of  communities  in 
which  there  are  three  or  more  congregations  of  different  de- 
nominations, each  with  a  separate  building,  with  occasional 
ministrations  of  ministers  of  its  own  denomination.  It 
would  be  a  boon  if  they  could  worship  in  the  same  building 
under  the  same  minister.  He  might  be  a  minister  of  three 
or  more  different  judicatories.  He  might  minister  as  an 
Episcopalian  in  the  morning,  as  a  Presbyterian  or  Congre- 
gationalist  in  the  afternoon,  and  a  Methodist  in  the  evening. 
Why  not?  Many  could  do  it  and  would  do  it  if  the  way 
were  open  in  the  lower  judicatories.  One  of  the  greatest  of  the 
bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  had  that  idea, 
but  circumstances  have  prevented  its  realisation  thus  far. 
Thousands  of  ministers  and  millions  of  dollars  could  be  spared 
if  we  could  have  this  kind  of  Church  Unity.    It  would  be  a 


ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION  197 

delight  to  many  if  they  could  be  lawful  ministers  of  several 
different  denominations  at  the  same  time.  Such  would 
constitute  a  living  bridge  between  the  denominations. 

It  is  commonly  held  that  an  ordained  minister  has  au- 
thority to  minister  anywhere  in  the  Church  of  God.  It  is 
maintained  that  the  bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  are  not  only  diocesans,  but  bishops  in  the  Church  of 
God.  These  positions  are  untenable.  It  is  quite  true  that 
there  can  be  but  one  ordination  to  the  priesthood  according 
to  the  Roman  doctrine.  But  admission  to  the  order  of 
priesthood  does  not  carry  with  it  authority  for  a  world-wide 
ministry.  The  priest  is  ordained  to  minister  in  a  particular 
diocese  and  ordinarily,  over  a  particular  congregation.  He 
cannot  act  as  priest  in  any  other  diocese  without  the  consent 
of  the  diocesan.  He  cannot  be  a  free  lance  in  the  world. 
He  can  only  act  under  the  appointment  of  his  superiors.  A 
bishop  is  ordained  over  a  diocese,  but  he  cannot  act  as  a 
bishop  in  any  other- diocese  without  the  appointment  of  his 
metropolitan,  or  the  invitation  of  another  diocesan.  He 
may  act  in  council  when  summoned  to  the  council,  but  even 
in  council  he  acts  as  the  head  of  his  diocese,  not  as  a  universal 
bishop.  According  to  the  Roman  oecumenical  ecclesiastical 
organisation,  the  world  is  mapped  out  into  patriarchates, 
archdioceses,  dioceses  and  missionary  jurisdictions.  But 
those  who  minister  in  missionary  lands  are  subject  to  dioce- 
san authority,  and  are  within  the  territorial  and  comprehen- 
sive dominion  of  the  Roman  Church.  From  the  point  of 
view  of  one  holy  catholic  oecumenical  Church,  ordination 
constitutes  a  priest  or  a  bishop  in  a  universal  Church;  he 
cannot  be  reordained,  but  he  cannot  minister  in  any  particu- 
lar place  without  appointment  by  his  diocesan,  and  he  cannot 
remove  without  authority. 

The  situation  becomes  very  much  changed  when  we 
recognise  more  than  one  valid  ecclesiastical  organisation. 
The  Church  of  England  has  no  ecclesiastical  authority  in 
any  other  land  than  England,  save  so  far  as  she  conducts 
missionary  work.     When  she  cut  herself  off  from  oecumenical 


198  CHURCH  UNITY 

relations,  she  lost  the  authority  to  give  her  ministry  oecumeni- 
cal relations,  or  to  constitute  her  bishops  any  other  than 
bishops  of  the  Church  of  England.  She  could  not  com- 
municate any  more  authority  than  she  had,  and  that  author- 
ity was  limited  to  England.  So  soon  as  the  authority  of  the 
Church  of  England  was  still  further  limited  and  restricted 
to  her  voluntary  adherents,  she  could  not  impart  to  her 
ministry  or  her  bishops  any  authority  beyond  the  persons 
who  voluntarily  adhere  to  the  Church  of  England.  The 
Church  of  England  became  more  and  more  limited  in  her 
jurisdiction  and  the  authority  of  her  ministry,  with  every 
separating  of  dissenters,  until  at  the  present  time  it  is  doubt- 
ful whether  she  has  authority  over  one-half  of  the  English 
people.  Under  these  circumstances  it  is  no  longer  possible 
to  think  of  Anglican  bishops  and  Anglican  priests  as  having 
any  authority  beyond  that  committed  to  them  over  the 
persons  who  adhere  to  them.  No  Anglican  bishop  can  ex- 
ercise jurisdiction  in  any  particular  over  any  company  of 
Roman  Catholics,  or  Presbyterians,  or  Congregationalists, 
or  Baptists,  or  Methodists,  or  Unitarians,  or  Friends,  or  any 
others,  except  Episcopalians.  He  cannot  convey  by  his 
ordination  any  authority  to  any  person  to  minister  over  any 
congregation  except  congregations  adhering  to  the  Church 
of  England.  The  same  thing  is  true  of  every  denomination  of 
Christians.  No  denomination  has  the  slightest  authority, 
or  the  least  shadow  of  a  jurisdiction,  beyond  its  own  volun- 
tary adherents.  No  ministers  have  any  other  external  au- 
thority in  the  Church  than  that  committed  to  them  by  the 
ecclesiastical  organisations  to  which  they  voluntarily  ad- 
here. Some  are  Episcopal  ministers,  others  are  Congre- 
gational, others  Presbyterian,  Baptist,  or  Reformed.  No 
one  of  them  can  act  as  a  minister  in  any  other  denomination 
without  receiving  authority  from  some  jurisdiction  in  that 
denomination  so  to  act.  They  are  ministers  of  Christ  by 
Christ's  appointment,  but  none  of  them  has  any  universal 
ministry,  and  they  cannot  have  such  ministry  in  the  present 
divided  state  of  Christendom  until  they  have  received  au- 


ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION  199 

thority  and  submitted  to  the  jurisdiction  of  all  valid  exist- 
ing ecclesiastical  organisations. 

It  is  intolerable  to  suppose  that  any  ecclesiastical  body, 
in  the  present  divided  state  of  the  Church,  can  make  or  un- 
make Christian  ministers  for  the  whole  world.  Their  mak- 
ing and  unmaking  will  be  recognised  by  no  other  body  but 
themselves.  The  ministry  are  deceiving  themselves  in  sup- 
posing that  the  separated  denominations  have  made  them 
ministers  of  the  one  undivided  Church.  They  cannot  do 
this  so  long  as  they  remain  divided.  When  the  separated 
Churches  have  become  one  undivided  Church,  then  and  not 
until  then  will  a  denominational  ministry  become  a  Catholic 
ministry. 

The  Protestant  Episcopal  bishops  are  no  more  than 
diocesan  bishops.  They  have  no  other  Episcopal  authority 
than  that  imparted  to  them  at  their  ordination.  They  are 
bound  to  act  under  the  Canon  Law  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church.  It  is  not  in  accordance  with  ecclesiastical 
law,  and  it  is  not  safe,  to  attribute  to  them  any  other  authority, 
any  other  prerogative.  They  have  no  jurisdiction  outside 
of  their  diocese  except  so  far  as  they  may  be  invited  to  exer- 
cise jurisdiction  temporarily  by  other  diocesan  authority. 
If  they  act  as  bishops  outside  of  their  denomination,  they  act 
without  authority,  unless  they  receive  additional  authority  so 
to  act  from  a  body  of  ministers  competent  to  select  them  as 
their  diocesans. 

Suppose  that  a  number  of  ministers  of  different  denom- 
inations should  organise  themselves  into  a  body  of  ministry, 
and  request  a  bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  to 
act  as  their  diocesan,  and  he  should  agree  to  do  so,  and  they  by 
the  imposition  of  their  hands  should  communicate  to  one  an- 
other all  the  ministerial  authority  they  could  communicate — 
what  would  they  communicate  and  what  would  be  the  result  ? 
No  one  of  them  could  have  any  ecclesiastical  authority  to 
act  outside  of  the  ecclesiastical  organisation  to  which  he 
belonged.  They  could  not,  therefore,  communicate  any  au- 
thority   whatever    from    their    ecclesiastical    organisations. 


200  CHURCH   UNITY 

The  only  authority  they  could  communicate  would  be  that 
which  they  possess  by  the  internal  call  received  by  each  of 
them  from  Jesus  Christ.  They  would  simply  constitute  a 
new  denomination  of  Christians  without  transmitting  any 
authority  whatever  from  any  existing  denominations.  This 
is  the  precise  position  in  which  Ballington  Booth,  Com- 
mander of  the  Volunteers,  has  been  placed  by  his  supposed 
ordination  by  ministers  from  several  different  denominations. 
These  ministers  disclaimed  acting  with  the  authority  of  their 
denominations  behind  them.  Therefore  they  disclaimed 
all  ecclesiastical  authority.  The  ordination  was  without 
the  authority  of  any  body  of  Christians.  No  authority  was 
imparted  by  any  Church.  The  ordination  was  a  mere 
ceremony;  it  can  only  be  regarded  as  null  and  void. 

The  reunion  of  Christendom  depends  upon  these  ques- 
tions of  jurisdiction  more  than  uf)on  any  other  questions. 
We  have  studied  some  of  the  difficulties  in  the  way.  We 
have  examined  some  of  the  solutions  of  them  which  seem 
practicable.  Church  Unity  is  such  an  inestimable  boon  that 
many  are  willing  to  make  great  sacrifices  for  its  attainment. 
But  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  know  what  we  are  about  and 
to  avoid  compromising  blunders.  Roman  Catholics  and 
Anglicans,  Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists,  and  other 
religious  bodies,  have,  through  their  supreme  judicatories, 
spoken  words  of  reconciliation  and  expressed  the  desire  for 
the  Reunion  of  Christendom.  We  may  be  sure,  therefore, 
that  there  is  a  world-wide  movement  in  the  direction  of  Church 
Unity,  and  that  all  the  difficulties  which  lie  in  the  way  will 
be  carefully  studied  and  eventually  removed.  It  may  seem 
like  a  dream  to  many.  But  it  is  really  a  constant  feature  in 
the  vision  of  Biblical  prophecy.  It  was  the  ideal  of  Jesus, 
and  we  may  be  certain  that  the  ideal  will  eventually  be  trans- 
formed into  reality. 


VII 
THE  REAL  AND  THE   IDEAL  IN  THE  PAPACY 

The  Papacy  is  one  of  the  greatest  institutions  that  have 
ever  existed  in  the  world;  it  is  much  the  greatest  now  exist- 
ing, and  it  looks  forward  with  calm  assurance  to  a  still  greater 
future.  Its  dominion  extends  throughout  the  world  over 
the  only  oecumenical  Church.  All  other  Churches  are  na- 
tional or  provincial  in  their  organisation.  It  reaches  back 
in  unbroken  succession  through  more  than  eighteen  centuries 
to  St.  Peter,  appointed  by  the  Saviour  of  the  world  to  be  the 
Primate  of  the  Apostles.  It  commands  the  great  central 
body  of  Christianity,  which  has  ever  remained  the  same 
organism  since  apostolic  times.  All  other  Christian  organ- 
isations, however  separate  they  may  be  from  the  parent 
stock,  have  their  share  in  the  Papacy  as  a  part  of  the  Chris- 
tian heritage  and  are  regarded  by  the  Papacy  as  subject  to 
its  jurisdiction.  The  authority  of  the  Papacy  is  recognised 
as  supreme  in  all  ecclesiastical  affairs,  by  the  most  compact 
and  best-organised  body  of  mankind,  and  as  infallible  in 
determination  of  doctrines  of  faith  and  morals  when  it  speaks 
ex  cathedra. 

The  history  of  the  Papacy  has  been  a  history  of  storm  and 
conflict.  About  it  have  raged  for  centuries  the  greatest  bat- 
tles in  all  history.  The  gates  of  hell  have  been  open  in 
Rome,  if  anywhere  in  this  world.  At  times  it  seemed  as  if 
hell  had  emptied  itself  in  Rome,  and,  to  use  the  language 
of  the  Apocalypse,  it  was  become  "a  habitation  of  devils  and 
a  hold  of  every  unclean  spirit."*  It  is  not  strange  that 
zealous  Protestants,  when  they  looked  at  the  abominations 
that  enveloped  the  Papacy  in  their  times,  saw  in  it  the 
*  Rev.  xviii,  2. 
201 


202  CHURCH  UNITY 

"woman  sitting  upon  a  scarlet-coloured  beast,  full  of  names 
of  blasphemy,"  and  regarded  it  as  "the  mother  of  the  harlots 
and  of  the  abominations  of  the  earth."  *  And  yet  these  forces 
of  evil  have  always  been  driven  back.  When  the  conflict 
has  subsided,  the  Papacy  has  stood  forth  stronger  than  ever. 
If  zealous  Protestants,  in  their  antipathy  to  the  Papacy, 
picture  it  in  all  the  imagery  of  the  Biblical  Anti-Christ,  can 
we  blame  the  defenders  of  the  Papacy  from  applying  to  it 
the  words  of  Jesus  to  St.  Peter?  Is  there  not  historic  truth 
in  saying,  "The  gates  of  hell  have  not  prevailed  against  it"? 
Are  not  the  words  of  Jesus  to  St.  Peter  equally  appropriate 
to  his  successors? — "Simon,  Simon,  behold,  Satan  asked 
to  have  you,  that  he  might  sift  you  as  wheat,  but  I  made  sup- 
plication for  thee,  that  thy  faith  fail  not:  and  do  thou,  when 
thou  art  converted,  strengthen  thy  brethren."^ 

I.    BIBLICAL  BASIS 

The  Papacy  has  a  much  firmer  basis  in  a  number  of  texts 
of  the  New  Testament  and  in  Christian  history  than  most 
Protestants  have  been  willing  to  recognise.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  Roman  Catholic  controversialists  have  warped 
the  meaning  of  several  passages  of  the  New  Testament  in 
the  interest  of  the  most  exaggerated  claims  for  the  Papacy. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  Protestant  controversialists  have 
minimised  the  importance  of  these  texts  and  emptied  them 
of  their  true  meaning.  Jesus,  in  his  vision  of  his  Kingdom, 
when  St.  Peter  recognised  him  as  the  Messiah,  said: 

"Blessed  art  thou,  Simon,  son  of  Jonah, 
For  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee, 
But  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven; 
And  I  say  unto  thee:  Thou  art  Peter, 
And  upon  this  rock  will  I  build  my  church  (house), 
And  the  gates  of  Hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it. 
I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 
And  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven. 
And  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven." 

(Matt,  xvi,  17-19.) 

*  Rev.  xvii,  3-6.  "  Luke  xxii,  31,  32. 


THE  REAL  AND  THE  IDEAL  IN  THE  PAPACY  203 

All  attempts  to  explain  the  "rock"  in  any  other  way  than  as 
referring  to  Peter  have  ignominiously  failed.*  As  I  have  said 
elsewhere : 

St.  Peter  was  thus  made  by  the  appointment  of  Jesus  the  rock  on 
which  the  Church  was  buih  as  a  spiritual  house,  or*  temple;  and  at 
the  same  time  the  porter  of  the  kingdom,  whose  privilege  it  is  to  open 
and  shut  its  gates.  The  Church  is  here  conceived  as  a  building,  a  house, 
constituted  of  living  stones,  all  built  upon  Peter,  the  first  of  these  stones, 
or  the  primary  rock  foundation.  It  is  also  conceived  as  a  city  of  God, 
into  which  men  enter  by  the  gates.  These  conceptions  are  familiar  in 
the  Old  Testament,  as  well  as  in  the  New  Testament.  The  significant 
thing  here  is  the  primacy  of  St.  Peter.  He  is  chief  of  the  Twelve,  who 
elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament  are  conceived  as  the  twelve  foundations 
of  the  temple  and  city  of  God.  He  is  the  chief  porter,  as  elsewhere  the 
Twelve  have  the  authority  of  the  keys,  and  the  Church  has  it,  as  an 
assembly  of  Christians.  Jesus  gave  them  authority  to  admit  into  his 
kingdom,  or  to  exclude  therefrom.    (Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus,  p.  277.) 

This  saying  of  Jesus  is  confirmed  by  the  history  of  the 
apostolic  age.  Peter  was  certainly  the  chief  of  the  apostles, 
according  to  all  the  Gospels,  during  the  earthly  life  of  our 
Lord.  The  early  chapters  of  Acts  represent  him  as  the 
acknowledged  chief  of  the  apostolic  community  down  to  the 
Council  at  Jerusalem.  If  we  had  the  continuation  of  the 
narrative  of  St.  Peter's  work  in  Antioch,  Western  Asia  and 
finally  in  Rome,  in  all  probability  the  same  undisputed 
leadership  would  appear.  But  the  last  half  of  the  book  of 
Acts  follows  the  career  of  St.  Paul,  based  on  the  narrative 
of  one  of  his  companions,  probably  Titus,  and  naturally  St. 
Paul  is  the  hero  of  that  narrative.  Furthermore,  St.  Paul's 
work  is  illustrated  by  his  Epistles,  which  assume  a  most 
prominent  position  in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  very  com- 
mon among  those  who  follow  the  Lutheran  tradition,  which 
makes  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  the  test  of  the  genuine 
theology  of  St.  Paul  and  the  key  to  Apostolic  Christianity, 
to  depreciate  St.  Peter  in  comparison  with  St.  Paul.  But, 
in  fact,  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  decided  for  St.  Peter,  and 
St.  Paul  himself  abandoned  his  earlier  unflinching  adherence 
'  See  Briggs,  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  p.  190. 


204  CHURCH  UNITY 

to  theory  in  favor  of  the  Christian  expediency  of  St.  Peter, 
in  all  of  his  subsequent  life,  as  is  evident  from  his  own  later 
Epistles  and  from  the  story  of  the  companion  of  his  travels. 
It  has  been  established  by  modern  Historic  Criticism  that 
the  Church  of  the  second  century  did  not  build  on  St.  Paul, 
but  rather  on  the  Gospels  and,  presumably,  on  St.  Peter. 
Hamack  puts  it  in  the  form  of  an  Irish  bull  when  he  says: 
"  Only  one  Gentile  Christian,  Marcion,  understood  St.  Paul, 
and  he  misunderstood  him."^ 

It  is  evident  that  Jesus,  in  speaking  to  St.  Peter,  had  the 
whole  history  of  his  Kingdom  in  view.  He  sees  conflict 
with  the  evil  powers  and  victory  over  them.  It  is,  therefore, 
vain  to  suppose  that  we  must  limit  the  commission  to  St. 
Peter.  We  could  no  more  do  that  than  we  could  limit  the 
apostolic  commission  to  the  apostles.  The  commission  of 
the  primate,  no  less  than  the  commission  of  the  Twelve, 
includes  their  successors  in  all  time  to  the  end  of  the  world. 
The  natural  interpretation  of  the  passage,  apart  from  all  prej- 
udice, gives  the  Papacy  a  basal  authority,  as  it  has  always 
maintained.  Therefore,  we  must  admit  that  there  must  be 
a  sense  in  which  the  successors  of  St.  Peter  are  the  rock  of 
the  Church,  and  have  the  authority  of  the  keys  in  ecclesiasti- 
cal government,  discipline  and  determination  of  faith  and 
morals.  Inasmuch,  however,  as  the  commission  is  given 
to  the  Twelve  and  their  successors  also  as  to  the  power  of  the 
keys,  it  is  necessary  to  take  the  several  passages  together, 
and  conclude  that  the  authority  was  given  to  the  apostles  in 
a  body  by  our  Lord,  and  that  it  was  given  to  St.  Peter  as  the 
executive  head  of  the  body. 

There  are  two  other  passages  upon  which  the  Papacy 
builds  its  authority.  The  chief  of  these  is  John  xxi.,  where 
Peter  is  singled  out  from  the  seven,  who  were  with  Jesus  on 
the  shore  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee  after  his  resurrection,  and 
the  command  was  given  to  Peter  to  feed  the  sheep.  Here 
Jesus  appoints  St.  Peter  to  be  the  shepherd  of  the  flock  of 
Christ,  which,  in  accordance  with  the  usage  of  the  time  with 
^  Dogmengeschichte  (1886),  I,  p.  62. 


THE  REAL   AND  THE  IDEAL  IN  THE  PAPACY  205 

reference  to  the  kings  of  David's  line,  and  with  reference  to 
Christ  himself  as  the  good  Shepherd,  implies  government  of 
the  Church.  It  is  all  the  more  significant  that  this  passage 
singles  out  and  distinguishes  Peter  in  the  presence  of  the  sons 
of  Zebedee  and  others,  the  most  prominent  of  the  Twelve, 
and  that  the  narrative  is  contained  in  the  Gospel  of  John. 
Here,  again,  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  this  is  a  commission 
to  St.  Peter  as  an  individual.  He  is  given  an  office  as  the 
chief  shepherd  of  the  flock  of  Christ.  If  the  flock  continues, 
the  chief  shepherd  must  be  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  to 
carry  on  his  work  as  shepherd.  The  third  passage  is  given  in 
Luke  xxii.  31,  32.  None  of  these  passages  is  in  the  Gospel 
of  Mark,  which  represents  the  preaching  of  St.  Peter  as 
nearly  as  we  can  come  to  it;  but  in  the  other  three  Gospels, 
Matthew  from  Palestine  or  Syria,  John  from  Asia  Minor,  and 
Luke  from  a  Roman  disciple  of  St.  Paul.  They  may  well, 
therefore,  represent  the  consensus  of  the  Apostolic  Church. 
These  three  words  of  Jesus  to  St.  Peter  were  all  uttered  on  the 
most  solemn  and  critical  occasions  in  the  life  of  our  Lord. 
They  may  all  be  regarded,  therefore,  as  visions  of  our  Lord, 
visions  of  his  Kingdom  and  ideals  of  the  Papacy. 

II.    HISTORIC  RIGHT 

I  cannot  undertake  to  give  even  a  sketch  of  the  history  of 
the  Papacy.  We  shall  have  to  admit  that  the  Christian 
Church  from  the  earliest  times  recognised  the  primacy  of 
the  Roman  bishop,  and  that  all  other  great  Sees  at  times 
recognised  the  supreme  jurisdiction  of  Rome  in  matters  of 
doctrine,  government  and  discipline.  It  can  easily  be  shown 
that  the  assumptions  of  the  bishops  of  Rome  were  often  re- 
sented, their  intrusions  into  the  rights  of  other  patriarchates, 
provinces  and  dioceses  were  often  resisted,  their  decisions 
were  often  refused;  but  when  the  whole  case  has  been  care- 
fully examined  and  all  the  evidences  sifted,  the  statement  of 
Irenaeus  stands  firm: 

Since,  however,  it  would  be  very  tedious,  in  such  a  volume  as  this, 
to  reckon  up  the  successions  of  all  the  Churches,  we  do  put  to  confusion 


206  CHURCH   UNITY 

all  those  who,  in  whatever  manner,  whether  by  an  evil  self-pleasing,  by 
vainglory,  or  by  blindness  or  perverse  opinion,  assemble  in  unauthorised 
meetings;  (we  do  this,  I  say)  by  indicating  that  tradition  derived  from 
the  apostles,  of  the  very  great,  the  very  ancient,  and  universally  known 
Church,  founded  and  organised  at  Rome  by  the  two  most  glorious 
apostles,  Peter  and  Paul;  as  also  (by  pointing  out)  the  faith  preached 
to  men,  which  comes  down  to  our  times  by  means  of  the  succession  of 
the  bishops.  For  it  is  a  matter  of  necessity  that  every  Church  should 
agree  with  this  Church  on  accoimt  of  its  pre-eminent  authority,  that  is, 
the  faithful  everywhere,  inasmuch  as  the  apostolic  tradition  has  been 
preserved  continuously  by  those  (faithful  men)  who  exist  everywhere. 
{Adv.  Hcer.  Ill,  3:2.) 

The  historical  development  of  the  Papacy  is  one  of  the 
most  stupendous  series  of  events  in  history.  Throughout 
the  greater  part  of  its  history,  until  the  Reformation,  the 
Papacy  represented  the  cause  of  the  Christian  people  against 
emperor,  kings  and  princelets.  It  was  the  saviour  of  Chris- 
tian civilisation  from  heathen  barbarism.  But  toward  the 
close  of  the  Middle  Ages,  owing  to  its  entanglement  with 
political  affairs  and  the  exaggeration  of  its  civil  interests 
over  against  its  ecclesiastical,  the  Papacy  so  stretched  its 
prerogatives  as  to  become  a  peril  to  the  States  of  Europe, 
where  absolutism  had  to  be  resisted  at  all  costs  in  the  inter- 
ests of  humanity  and  even  of  Christianity  itself.  After  many 
ineffectual  attempts  to  reform  the  Papacy  by  Christian 
Councils  and  movements  of  various  kinds  that  had  resulted 
in  wide-spread  and  wellnigh  universal  dissatisfaction,  Luther 
applied  the  match,  and  Europe  was  aflame  in  resistance  to 
the  unholy  despotism  of  the  Popes.  Few,  if  any,  thought  of 
overthrowing  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Papacy  in  ecclesiastical 
affairs,  but  they  were  determined  to  rid  themselves  of  its 
despotism  in  all  other  affairs.  But  the  inevitable  result  of  the 
conflict  was  the  repudiation  by  Protestantism  of  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Pope  altogether.  It  was  found  that  the  eccle- 
siastical and  the  civil  were  so  inextricably  interwoven,  at  the 
time,  that  the  whole  fabric  had  to  be  cast  off. 

The  Protestant  Reformation  was  essentially  a  Protest, 
and  so  it  might  always  have  remained,  a  protest  against  Papal 


THE  REAL  AND  THE  IDEAL  IN  THE  PAPACY     207 

usurpation,  with  a  willingness  to  recognise  all  valid,  historical 
and  Biblical  rights  of  the  Pope.  But,  by  the  irresistible 
force  of  circumstances.  Protestantism  was  compelled  to  go 
further  and  organise  itself  in  national  Churches,  entirely 
apart  from  any  jurisdiction  of  the  Pope.  So  far  as  there  was 
a  historical  necessity  for  this  course,  it  was  valid.  But  when, 
later,  Protestants  went  so  far  as  to  deny  all  the  historic  rights 
of  the  Papacy,  Protestantism  put  itself  in  a  false  position 
which  must  ultimately  be  abandoned.  In  the  meanwhile 
the  Papacy  has  been  obliged  gradually  to  reform  itself.  The 
Council  of  Trent  was  a  reforming  Council,  and  there  has  been 
a  slow,  cautious,  but  steady  advance  in  reform  ever  since. 
Catholics  and  Protestants  all  over  the  world  are  looking  with 
hope  and  eagerness  for  great  and  wide-spread  reforms,  such 
as  may  remove  the  evils  that  brought  about  the  division  of 
the  Church,  and  destroy  the  barriers  which  perpetuate  the 
separation,  and  in  a  spirit  of  love  and  concord  rally  the 
entire  Christian  world  about  Christ  our  Lord,  and  a  successor 
of  St.  Peter  who  will  be  as  near  to  Christ  as  St.  Peter  was, 
and  as  truly  a  representative  of  the  Lord  and  Master  as 
Shepherd  of  the  flock  of  Christ,  the  executive  head  of  a  re- 
united Christianity.  Is  there  in  the  Papacy  as  at  present 
constituted  any  hope  for  the  future?  Can  we  see  any 
prospects  for  such  reforms  as  are  necessary  to  reunion  ? 

III.     PRIMACY  OF  THE  POPE 

(1)  The  unity  of  the  Church  is  in  Christ,  the  head  of  the 
entire  body  of  Christians.  Such  a  Christianity  embraces  the 
world  of  the  living  and  the  dead,  those  in  various  stages  of 
preparation,  as  well  as  those  already  Christian.  Christianity 
in  the  world  is  organised  in  one  Church,  under  the  Apostolic 
ministry,  culminating  in  the  universal  Bishop,  the  successor 
of  St.  Peter.  The  three  constituents  necessary  to  complete 
unity  are  the  Pope,  the  ministry  and  the  people,  a  threefold 
cord  which  should  not  be  broken.  The  unity  of  the  Church 
is  not  in  the  person  of  the  Pope,  but  in  his  ofiice,  as  the  uni- 


208  CHURCH  UNITY 

versal  bishop,  and  as  such  the  head  of  all  the  bishops,  as  these 
are  of  the  ministers  and  people.  In  Christian  history,  the 
unity  of  the  ministry  has  been  expressed  in  (Ecumenical  Coun- 
cils, that  of  the  people  in  their  lawful  civil  governments.  Any 
failure  to  recognise  and  give  due  weight  to  each  and  all  of 
these  constituents  of  unity  impairs  the  unity  of  the  Church, 
but  does  not  destroy  it,  so  long  as  even  one  of  the  lines  re- 
mains unbroken. 

(2)  The  Pope,  as  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  is  the  exec- 
utive head  of  the  Church.  But  that  which  is  essential  to  his 
office  and  the  exercise  of  its  functions  should  be  distinguished 
from  what  is  unessential  and  unnecessary.  The  Primacy 
is  independent  of  national  or  circumstantial  relations.  It  is 
not  necessary  that  the  successor  of  St.  Peter  should  be  Italian 
or  Roman.  St.  Peter  was  not  a  Roman,  but  a  Jew  of  Pales- 
tine. The  Popes  have  been,  in  fact,  chiefly  Roman  or  Italian, 
except  for  the  periods  of  the  supremacy  of  the  German 
Empire,  when  there  was  a  series  of  German  Popes,  and  the 
supremacy  of  France  and  the  residence  of  the  Popes  at 
Avignon,  when  there  was  a  series  of  French  Popes.  This  is 
a  provincialisation  or  nationalisation  of  the  Papacy,  and  is 
a  serious  hindrance  to  its  universality.  However  important 
it  may  be,  for  historical  reasons,  that  the  successor  of  St. 
Peter  should  have  his  seat  in  Rome,  it  is  not  essential.  St. 
Peter  was  primate  before  he  went  to  Rome.  His  residence 
in  Rome  was  brief,  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  would 
have  remained  permanently  in  Rome  if  he  had  lived.  The 
residence  of  the  Popes  at  Avignon  for  a  long  period  makes 
this  position  necessary,  otherwise  the  succession  would  be 
broken.  It  is  not  essential  that  the  successor  of  St.  Peter 
should  be  bishop  of  Rome.  There  is  no  sufficient  evidence 
that  St.  Peter  was  bishop  of  Rome,  or  that  Rome  had  a  bishop 
in  apostolic  times.  The  combination  of  a  universal  episco- 
pate with  a  diocesan  episcopate,  however  necessary  in  early 
times,  has  been  productive  of  a  multitude  of  evils.  The 
Roman  people  have  ever  made  claims  in  their  choice  of  their 
own  bishops  which,  while  entirely  appropriate  to  a  diocesan 


THE  REAL  AND  THE  IDEAL  IN  THE  PAPACY     209 

bishop,  cannot  be  recognised  as  valid  to  a  universal  bishop, 
and  have  been  intolerable  to  other  cities  and  nations.  The 
interests  of  the  city  of  Rome  have  ever  been  exaggerated  at 
the  expense  of  other  cities  and  nations.  This  has  tended  to 
make  the  Papacy  metropolitan  and  provincial,  rather  than 
universal.  The  efforts  of  the  great  Popes  to  do  justice  to  their 
universal  episcopate  have  kept  them  in  constant  strife  with 
Rome  and  Italy  until  the  present  day.  If  in  some  way  the 
office  of  the  primate  could  be  separated  from  diocesan,  pro- 
vincial and  national  episcopates  and  limited  to  oecumenical 
duties,  a  multitude  of  evils  would  be  overcome. 

(3)  The  primacy  of  the  Pope  does  not  depend  upon  any 
particular  theory  as  to  the  extent  of  his  jurisdiction.  This 
has  varied  from  age  to  age.  The  theory  of  the  primacy  of 
the  Pope  which  prevailed  in  the  ancient  Catholic  Church 
must  be  regarded  as  sufficient  to  maintain  the  unity  of  the 
Church  in  the  Papacy,  otherwise  this  unity  did  not  then  exist 
and  cannot  be  derived  by  succession  from  the  apostles.  The 
theory  of  the  Papacy  which  now  prevails  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  may  be  regarded  as  a  development  of  the 
original  definition  of  the  primacy,  but  cannot  be  regarded  as 
essential  to  its  existence.  Those  who  hold  to  the  primacy  of 
the  Pope  in  the  ancient  Catholic  sense  cannot  be  regarded  as 
violating  the  unity  of  the  Church  in  the  Papacy,  because  they 
refuse  to  regard  this  late  development  as  valid.  If  the  Papacy 
of  to-day  makes  it  impossible  for  them  to  take  part  actively 
in  this  unity,  the  Papacy  itself  is  to  blame. 

The  primacy  of  the  Pope  was  recognised  in  the  ancient 
Catholic  Church,  even  by  Churches  which  were  compelled  to 
separate  from  P^ome  by  unrighteous  and  intolerable  tyranny 
of  the  Popes.  The  chief  fault  was  with  the  Popes,  who 
strained  the  lines  of  jurisdiction  so  far  that  they  broke.  If 
these  faults  of  Rome  should  ever  be  reduced  to  a  minimum, 
there  is  no  sufficient  reason  why  the  separation  should  con- 
tinue because  of  ancient  faults.  The  slender  thread  of  a 
recognised  primacy,  latent  and  inoperative,  is  still  sufficient 
to  maintain  the  essential  unity  of  the  Church, 


210  CHURCH  UNITY 

The  primacy  of  the  Pope  was  recognised  by  the  Protestant 
Reformers,  who  appealed  from  a  Pope  ill  informed  to  a  Pope 
well  informed.  They  receded  from  the  position  only  when 
expelled  from  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  when  such 
a  position  became  no  longer  practicable.  Theoretically, 
Protestantism  still  remains  Protestant,  protesting  against  the 
excessive  claims  of  the  Papacy  and  willing  to  recognise  its 
legitimate  claims.  When  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Papacy  is 
reduced  to  its  normal  dimensions,  there  will  remain  no  suflBi- 
cient  reason  for  the  separation  of  the  Protestant  Churches, 
provided  other  obstacles  have  been  removed. 

(4)  The  primacy  of  the  Popes  does  not  depend  upon  any 
particular  theory  as  to  the  subject-matter  of  their  jurisdiction. 
That  has  varied  from  time  to  time,  and  only  the  Catholic 
essentials  can  be  rightly  demanded.  The  claim  of  the  Papacy 
to  jurisdiction  in  civil  affairs  and  to  dominion  over  civic  gov- 
ernments has  been  justly  refused  by  the  nations  at  the  ex- 
pense of  many  wars,  and  is  no  longer  of  any  practical  im- 
portance. Even  in  the  mild  forms  of  mediation  for  peace 
it  has  recently  been  rejected  with  unanimity  by  the  nations 
at  the  Conference  at  the  Hague.  Such  claims  are  against 
the  express  teaching  of  Jesus  and  his  apostles,  and  the  prac- 
tice of  the  ancient  Catholic  Church. 

The  claims  of  the  Papacy  to  a  Papal  domain  in  the  former 
States  of  the  Church  and  the  city  of  Rome  have  been  rejected 
by  the  people  of  those  States  and  the  city  of  Rome  itself. 
Whatever  historic  necessity  there  may  have  been  for  so  ex- 
tensive a  civil  dominion  in  the  past,  at  present  such  an  ex- 
tended civil  jurisdiction  is  impracticable  and  of  no  real  im- 
portance. The  Papacy  must  have  a  territory  in  which  it 
may  carry  on  the  government  of  the  Church  throughout  the 
world  outside  the  jurisdiction  of  any  particular  civil  govern- 
ment. But  a  very  limited  territory,  such  as  the  American 
District  of  Columbia,  would  be  amply  sufficient  for  that 
purpose. 

The  claim  of  the  Papacy  to  determine  questions  of  civil 
government  for  Roman  Catholic  citizens  is  resisted  by  mod- 


THE  REAL  AND  THE  IDEAL  IN  THE  PAPACY     211 

em  peoples,  and  must  be  eventually  withdrawn.  Whether 
the  attempt  is  made  to  influence  the  governments  by  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Papacy,  as  in  Austria  and  Spain,  or  by  the 
organisation  of  Catholic  parties  for  the  maintenance  of  so- 
called  Catholic  principles,  as  in  Germany,  they  intensify 
political  strife  by  religious  interests,  they  mix  politics  and 
religion,  they  provoke  religious  conflicts,  and  are  demoral- 
ising to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  itself. 

The  sad  results  of  such  Papal  interference  are  now  dis- 
turbing the  great  French  nation.  Whatever  faults  there  may 
have  been  on  the  part  of  the  French  government,  it  was,  in 
fact,  defending  itself  against  Papal  interference,  and  it  is  not 
surprising  that  the  defence  was  at  last  transformed  into  an 
aggressive  campaign,  in  the  determination  to  get  rid  of  the 
enemy  once  for  all,  and  at  all  hazards.  In  such  a  conflict 
it  is  vain  for  the  Papacy  to  assert  the  divine  constitution  of 
the  Church,  for  that  divine  constitution  has  nothing  whatever 
to  do  with  civil  jurisdiction  or  rights  of  property. 

The  claims  of  the  Papacy  to  determine  questions  of 
Science  and  Philosophy,  of  Sociology  and  Economics,  are  re- 
sented and  resisted  by  scholars  and  people  interested  in  these 
matters.  The  Syllabus  of  Pius  IX  was  just  such  an  intrusion 
of  Papal  jurisdiction,  which  has  injured  the  influence  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  to  a  very  great  extent  and  has  been 
productive  of  great  mischief.  The  issue  of  another  Syllabus 
by  Pius  X  is  a  reactionary  policy,  which  greatly  imperils 
the  influence  of  the  Papacy  upon  the  present  generation. 
The  continual  inscribing  on  the  Index  of  many  of  the  best 
works  of  modem  scholars,  even  those  of  devout  Roman 
Catholics,  is  resented  by  scholars  of  all  faiths.  The  recent 
decisions  of  the  Papal  Commission,  under  the  lead  of  incom- 
petent divines,  against  the  sure  results  of  modem  Biblical 
criticism,  present  clear  evidence  of  the  intolerance  of  modern 
Roman  scholasticism. 

The  claims  of  the  Popes  to  determine  social  questions, 
such  as  marriage  and  divorce  and  public  education,  in  their 
civil  relations,  have  been  resisted  in  all  free  countries,  and 


212  CHURCH  TTNITY 

have  resulted  in  civil  marriage  and  divorce,  and  in  public 
schools  without  religious  instruction.  There  can  be  no  ques- 
tion of  the  right  of  the  Pope  to  determine  all  ecclesiastical 
questions  as  regards  marriage  and  divorce  for  Roman  Catholic 
citizens,  and  to  fortify  ecclesiastical  opinions  by  ecclesiastical 
penalties;  or  of  the  right  of  Roman  Catholic  citizens  to  organ- 
ise parochial  schools  with  religious  instruction  after  their 
own  mind;  but  any  interference  by  the  Pope  directly  or  in- 
directly with  such  questions  when  under  debate  by  modem 
governments  cannot  be  less  than  a  misuse  of  Papal  jurisdic- 
tion. 

(5)  The  jurisdiction  of  the  Pope  should  be  defined  and 
limited  by  a  constitution,  as  the  executive  office  has  been  in  all 
modern  governments.  The  development  of  modem  civil  gov- 
ernments has  been  in  the  growth  of  constitutions,  defining  and 
limiting  the  power  and  jurisdiction  of  the  executive.  This  was 
necessary  in  order  to  the  removal  of  the  evils  of  absolutism 
and  tyranny.  The  same  development  is  greatly  needed  in 
the  Papacy  for  the  same  reasons.  The  Papacy  is  at  present 
more  absolute  in  its  government  than  the  Czar  of  Russia  or 
the  Sultan  of  Turkey.  It  can  no  more  be  allowed  to  the 
Popes  to  define  their  own  powers  and  the  subject-matter  of 
their  jurisdiction,  than  it  can  be  allowed  to  modern  monarchs. 
The  history  of  the  Papacy  is  a  history  of  errors  in  this  regard. 
The  Popes  have,  in  fact,  claimed  anything  and  everything 
they  wished.  Let  them  limit  their  jurisdiction  to  that  which 
St.  Peter  exercised,  and  the  world  will  have  no  quarrel  with 
them.  Constitutional  definitions  and  restrictions  are  needed 
to  restrain  the  Popes  and  their  councillors,  the  cardinals,  with- 
in their  legitimate  limits  of  jurisdiction;  and  also  to  defend 
the  rights  of  the  Papacy  from  the  intrusion  of  civil  govem- 
ments.  If  the  peril  of  former  times  was  the  excessive  claims 
of  the  Popes,  the  peril  at  present  is  also  the  intrusion  of  the 
civil  powers  into  ecclesiastical  affairs.  Such  a  constitution 
would  protect  the  Pope  in  his  rights  as  the  executive  head 
of  the  Church,  and  limit  him  only  within  his  just  sphere  of 
jurisdiction. 


THE  REAL  AND  THE  IDEAL  IN  THE  PAPACY  213 

The  definition  of  the  Vatican  Council  limits  the  sphere  of 
the  infallible  authoritj^  of  the  Pope  to  faith  and  morals,  and 
thereby  declares  fallible,  though  authoritative,  his  jurisdic- 
tion in  all  other  matters.  What  is  needed  to  make  that 
definition  more  practical  is  to  define  not  only  the  rights  and 
liberties  of  the  Church,  but  also  the  limits  of  that  liberty, 
restraining  the  Church  from  interference  with  the  States, 
and  modem  learning,  and  social  and  economical  affairs;  as 
well  as  restraining  the  States  from  interference  with  ecclesi- 
astical affairs. 

(6)  The  Primacy  of  the  Pope  is  not  apart  from  the  apostolic 
ministry  but  in  union  with  it.  The  Orientals  hold  to  the 
(Ecumenical  Councils  and  their  supremacy,  and  maintain 
their  unity  through  them.  The  subjugation  of  Oriental 
Christianity,  with  the  exception  of  Russia,  by  Mohammedan- 
ism, has  rendered  it  impracticable  for  them  to  engage  in 
General  Councils  in  modern  times.  The  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  after  the  separation  of  the  Orientals,  continued  to 
hold  (Ecumenical  Councils  down  to  the  present  time,  twenty- 
two  in  all;  but  inasmuch  as  these  Councils  were  limited  to 
bishops,  doctors  and  heads  of  orders,  in  subjection  to  Rome, 
and  they  excluded,  especially  since  the  Protestant  Reformation, 
the  representatives  of  the  majority  of  Christian  and  Orthodox 
Churches,  they  are  not  regarded  as  oecumenical,  except  by 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  itself.  Protestants  demanded 
an  (Ecumenical  Council  to  reform  the  Church  and  settle 
the  great  problems  and  controversies  of  Christianity.  The 
Council  of  Trent,  which  excluded  them  and  all  others,  ex- 
cept those  who  submitted  to  the  Pope,  they  could  not  recog- 
nise as  truly  oecumenical.  Protestantism  still  demands  an 
(Ecumenical  Council;  and,  so  far  as  is  practicable  through 
international  alliances  and  conventions  and  assemblies  of 
various  denominations,  is  striving  to  realise  it.  Those 
Christian  Churches  which  recognise  the  unity  of  the  Church 
in  (Ecumenical  Councils,  adhere  to  those  of  the  early  Church, 
which  were  truly  oecumenical,  and  long  for  such  in  the  present 
time,  to  remove  the  distractions  of  Christianity,  and  hold  to 


214  CHURCH  UNITY 

this  line  of  unity  so  far  as  practicable — they  are  not  so  much 
to  blame  for  the  perpetuation  of  discord  in  the  Church  as 
those  who  make  such  Councils  impossible. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  reduced  the  bishops  to 
submission  under  the  absolute  dominion  of  the  Pope.  The 
overruling  of  the  councils  of  the  episcopate  of  France  on 
several  recent  occasions  by  the  Pope,  and  their  humble 
submission  to  his  will,  constitute  one  of  the  most  melancholy 
situations  in  the  history  of  Christianity.  There  is  no  other 
provision  for  a  General  Council  of  bishops  than  the  desire, 
or  need,  of  the  Pope  to  convoke  them.  He  alone  determines 
the  members  of  the  Council,  which  in  any  case  is  composed 
largely  of  bishops  without  jurisdiction,  entirely  dependent 
upon  himself  for  support.  If  they  are  not  sufficiently  sub- 
missive, their  decisions  may  be  overruled  and  reversed  at 
his  will.  The  Vatican  Council  abdicated  the  rights  of 
Council  in  favour  of  the  Pope.  The  Papacy  thus  deprived 
itself  of  the  support  of  a  Council  at  the  very  time  when  modern 
States,  even  Italy,  found  it  necessary  to  establish  and  exalt 
the  powers  of  representative  bodies.  A  Council  will  not  be 
called  until  needed  to  sustain  the  Pope.  But  it  is  evident 
that  the  Pope  needs  just  such  a  Council  and  that  he  must  call 
it  erelong.  It  would  not  by  any  means  injure  the  Primacy  of 
the  Pope  if  he  were  sustained  by  an  episcopate  meeting  at 
regular  intervals  in  a  Council,  as  the  Council  of  Constance 
prescribed.  It  would  destroy  his  absolutism,  which  can  only 
invoke  passive  obedience,  but  it  would  enhance  his  authority 
by  giving  it  greatly  needed  support,  and  arouse  the  enthusiasm 
of  the  Church  for  greatly  needed  reforms.  The  Papacy 
should  limit  itself  by  a  representative  Council  of  Bishops, 
giving  to  such  a  body  the  legislative  functions  of  the  Church, 
and  restricting  the  Papal  authority  to  executive  functions 
and  the  right  of  initiative  and  veto  in  legislative  matters  as 
in  all  modem  civil  governments.  The  usual  objections  made 
to  such  representative  Councils  are  evidently  insincere.  They 
simply  indicate  the  reluctance  of  Rome  to  have  any  check 
upon  its  will.    The  bishops  are  required  to  report  to  the 


THE   REAL   AND  THE   IDEAL   IN  THE   PAPACY  215 

Pope  every  three  or  five  years.  It  would  be  no  more  difficult 
to  gather  them  at  regular  intervals  of  five  years  in  Council. 
Other  Christian  Churches  find  no  difficulty  in  assembling 
representatives  from  all  parts  of  the  world. 

The  Cardinalate  is  not  a  representative  body,  and  can 
hardly  be  made  one,  because  it  is  essentially  engaged  in  the 
executive  work  of  the  Church,  as  the  cabinets  and  officials 
of  modern  States.  It  is  chiefly  Italian,  and  largely  Roman, 
and  as  such  is  influenced  by  Roman  and  Italian  interests, 
often  at  the  sacrifice  of  oecumenical  relations.  There  is  a 
strong  feeling  throughout  the  world,  and  even  in  Rome,  that 
the  Cardinalate  should  be  a  more  representative  body,  less 
Italian  and  Roman.  It  is  generally  said  that  the  present 
Pope  will  gradually  bring  this  about.  But  he  has  done  noth- 
ing thus  far  in  this  direction.  The  reluctance  in  Rome  to 
appoint  American  cardinals,  and  the  eager  use  of  any  and 
every  excuse  to  avoid  it,  are  striking  evidences  of  the  desire 
not  to  give  the  American  Catholics  their  just  share  in  the 
government  of  the  Church  and  to  keep  them  under  the  do- 
minion of  Rome.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  cardinals 
are  diocesan  bishops  of  the  Roman  province,  presbyters  of 
Roman  Churches  and  deacons  of  the  Roman  diocese,  they  are 
too  Roman  to  be  oecumenical  in  office.  Furthermore,  the 
cardinals  are  really  the  cabinet  of  the  Pope;  and  it  is  necessary 
that  most  of  them  should  live  in  Rome  in  order  to  transact 
the  business  of  the  Church;  therefore  they  cannot  be  truly 
representative  of  other  nations. 

In  the  Protestant  world,  the  principle  of  representation  is 
much  further  developed  than  in  the  Roman  Catholic.  The 
synods,  diocesan,  provincial,  national  and  international, 
represent  the  ministry  in  most  Protestant  Churches.  The 
representative  principle  has  little  influence  at  present  in  the 
Roman  Catholic  world.  But  there  is  no  impediment  to  the 
full  recognition  of  that  principle  and  its  practical  efficient  use, 
if  the  Papacy  should  so  determine. 

(7)  The  third  line  of  unity  is  the  consent  of  the  Christian 
people.     This  consent  has  been  recognised  from  the  most 


216  CHURCH  UNITY 

ancient  times,  but  its  practical  operation  has  been  suppressed 
by  the  hierarchy  in  the  Roman  Church.  When  the  Roman 
Empire  became  Christian,  the  Emperor,  as  the  supreme 
ruler  of  the  Christian  people,  had  a  potent  influence  in  deter- 
mining ecclesiastical  and  doctrinal  affairs  in  the  West  as  well 
as  in  the  East.  The  Emperor  represented  the  Christian 
people,  over  against  the  clergy,  and  the  people  thereby  had, 
in  fact,  an  exaggerated  influence  in  the  Church.  The  right  of 
the  Emperor  was  inherited  by  the  modem  nations  into  which 
the  Empire  was  divided,  and  passed  over  from  king  to  princes, 
presidents,  parliaments  and  congresses  of  the  people.  In 
all  State  Churches,  the  rights  of  the  people  centre  in  their 
sovereigns  in  all  ecclesiastical  affairs.  In  the  free  Churches, 
the  consent  of  the  people  is  expressed  by  their  representatives 
sitting  with  the  ministry  in  various  representative  assemblies. 

The  Roman  Church  has  always  recognised  this  great 
original  Catholic  principle  of  unity,  and  therefore  insisted 
upon  the  union  of  Church  and  State.  Centuries  of  struggle 
with  the  empire  and  the  kings  and  States  of  Europe  were 
necessary,  because  of  the  conflict  between  civil  and  ecclesi- 
astical jurisdictions,  in  which  the  emperors  and  kings  were 
more  often  at  fault  than  even  the  Pope^,  who  resisted  to  the 
utmost  every  restriction  upon  a  jurisdiction  which  they  were 
ever  eager  to  enlarge.  The  battle  of  the  Reformation  resulted 
in  the  overthrow  of  the  Papacy  in  the  north  of  Europe,  and 
in  the  elimination  of  the  rights  of  the  nations  with  regard  to 
the  affairs  of  the  Church  in  southern  Europe,  by  the  estab- 
lishment of  Concordats. 

A  Concordat  is  something  more  than  a  commercial  agree- 
ment. It  is  nonsense  to  say  that  a  nation  may  not  annul 
such  an  agreement  without  the  consent  of  the  Papacy.  The 
Pope  himself  violated  the  laws  of  France  adapting  the  Con- 
cordat to  practical  issues,  by  summoning  two  French  bishops 
to  Rome  in  spite  of  the  prohibition  of  the  French  govern- 
ment. The  ecclesiastical  and  the  civil  interests  were  irrecon- 
cilable at  the  time,  and  the  Pope  had  to  act  in  accordance 
with  the  spiritual  interests  of  the  Church.     But  if  the  Pope 


THE  REAL  AND  THE  IDEAL  IN  THE  PAPACY     217 

may  violate  the  Concordat,  as  interpreted  by  France,  in  the 
interests  of  spiritual  religion,  the  French  government  may 
abrogate  it  in  the  interests  of  civil  government.  France 
could  not  recognise  the  supreme  jurisdiction  of  the  Pope  in 
the  matter  of  determining  questions  that  arose  under  the 
Concordat.  The  separation  of  Church  and  State  in  Italy 
and  France,  leaves  but  two  important  Roman  Catholic  States, 
Austria  and  Spain,  and  these  will  doubtless  soon  follow  the 
example  of  France.  The  fear  of  this  result  probably  in- 
fluences greatly  the  Papacy  in  its  resistance  to  the  present 
French  government.  This  is  probably  the  last  desperate 
struggle  of  the  Papacy  for  political  power.  Its  inevitable 
defeat  will  reduce  its  political  relations  to  a  minimum.  It 
will  be  an  immeasurable  blessing  to  the  world  when  civil 
politics  disappears  from  the  Papacy  altogether. 

In  much  the  greater  part  of  the  Roman  Catholic  world, 
the  Popes  have  at  present  no  means  of  determining  the  con- 
sent of  the  Christian  people,  except  by  their  submission  to 
the  decisions  of  Rome  made  known  through  the  episcopate. 
The  Papacy  has  absorbed  into  itself  the  authority  of  Coun- 
cils and  of  the  peoples  also,  and  so  has  become  the  most  ab- 
solute despotism  on  earth.  The  future  of  the  Papacy  in 
the  modern  world  depends  upon  the  reinvigoration  of  the 
latent  principle  of  the  consent  of  the  people  through  their 
representatives  in  some  form  of  ecclesiastical  Council.  There 
are,  here  and  there,  signs  of  the  beginning  of  some  such 
movement,  and  there  is  no  obstacle  to  it  except  the  consent 
of  the  Papacy. 

(8)  The  eventual  reunion  of  Christendom  depends  upon 
the  reinvigoration  and  harmonious  working  out  of  the  three 
lines  of  unity  as  a  threefold  cord  of  invincible  strength.  So 
far  as  the  Papacy  is  concerned,  it  should  be  constitutional, 
and  should  give  adequate  representation  to  the  clergy  and 
the  people,  meeting  in  Councils  at  regular  intervals.  The 
three  great  divisions  of  Christendom  have  only  partial  unity 
through  the  use  of  one  only  of  the  lines  of  unity.  The  Roman 
Church  makes  the  Papacy  the  most  essential  principle  of 


218  CHURCH  UNITY 

unity,  to  the  neglect  of  the  (Ecumenical  Council  and  the  con- 
sent of  the  Christian  people,  which  remain  latent  principles. 
The  Greeks  make  the  principle  of  unity  the  (Ecumenical 
Councils  and  the  consent  of  the  people  in  the  Emperor,  the 
real  head  of  the  Church ;  the  executive  principle  of  the  Papacy 
is  latent.  The  State  Churches  of  Protestantism  emphasise  the 
consent  of  the  people  in  the  authority  of  kings,  princes  and 
legislative  bodies.  The  Free  Churches  employ  the  consent 
of  the  people  in  representative  bodies.  There  are  no  valid 
reasons  why  the  Papacy  in  the  future  may  not  reinvigorate 
the  Council  by  making  it  truly  representative  of  the  ministry 
and  the  people  of  the  Christian  world. 

(9)  In  the  most  advanced  modem  States  the  government 
distinguishes  three  great  functions — the  executive,  legislative 
and  judicial — each  having  its  own  appropriate  organisation. 
The  executive  function  is  exercised  in  monarchies  by  a  king 
or  emperor,  in  republics  by  a  president.  The  legislative 
function  is  exercised  by  legislative  bodies  usually  in  two 
Houses,  the  one  more  directly  representing  the  people,  the 
other  representing  the  nobility,  or  the  more  conservative 
interests.  The  judicial  function  is  exercised  by  a  bench  of 
judges.  In  no  Church  has  there  been  a  sufficient  discrimina- 
tion in  the  development  of  these  functions.  All  Churches 
alike  are  a  long  distance  behind  the  civil  governments  in 
this  matter.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  combines  them 
all  in  the  Papacy,  just  as  in  former  ages  they  were  combined 
in  the  Emperor.  Protestant  bodies  combine  all  three  func- 
tions: in  Free  Churches  in  national  synods;  in  State  Churches 
under  various  ecclesiastical  authorities  appointed  by  and 
subject  to  the  State.  The  executive  function  is  in  the  back- 
ground even  in  Episcopal  Churches.  The  judicial  function 
is  the  one  that  is  most  neglected,  and  therefore  it  is  always 
difficult  to  get  a  valid  judicial  decision  upon  any  important 
question,  whether  of  doctrine,  government  or  discipline, 
in  any  of  the  Protestant  Churches.  There  is  no  adequate 
training  of  the  clergy  in  Canon  Law,  and  they  are  therefore 
as  a  body  altogether  unfitted  to  sit  as  jurors  or  judges.    The 


THE  REAL  AND  THE  IDEAL  IN  THE  PAPACY  219 

transformation  of  Church  government  into  full  accord  with 
modern  Civil  government  would  be  a  most  important  step 
toward  the  restoration  of  the  full  unity  of  the  Church. 

(10)  There  are  no  serious  barriers  in  the  way  of  such  a 
transformation  of  the  Papacy  as  may  remove  the  chief  ob- 
jections of  those  Churches,  which  do  not  at  present  recognise 
its  supreme  jurisdiction.  ,  The  great  principle  of  unity  of 
Greek  and  Oriental  Churches  may  become  operative  in 
(Ecumenical  Councils  truly  representing  the  entire  Christian 
world.  Such  Councils  may  by  their  decisions  so  supplement, 
enlarge  and  improve  the  past  decisions  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  and  Popes  that  the  objections  to  them  may  be  re- 
moved and  the  entire  world  may  accept  the  results.  The 
infallible  and  irreformable  determinations  of  Councils  and 
Popes  are  few,  and  these  may  be  so  explained,  limited  or  en- 
larged; and  the  essential  so  discriminated  from  the  unessen- 
tial, that  even  these  determinations  may  no  longer  be  stum- 
bling-blocks to  the  world.  The  great  principle  of  Protestant 
Christianity,  the  consent  of  the  Christian  people,  may  become 
operative  in  the  introduction  of  representatives  of  the  people 
into  the  presbyterial  and  synodical  system  of  the  Church. 
The  bureaucracy  of  the  Cardinalate  and  the  Congregations 
at  Rome  may  be  reduced  to  the  efficient  system  in  use  in  all 
modern  representative  governments.  The  absolutism  of 
the  Pope  may  be  limited  by  a  constitution  defining  carefully 
the  limitations  and  extent  of  his  powers.  The  government 
of  the  Pope  may  be  fortified  and  at  the  same  time  limited 
by  a  Council,  meeting  every  three  or  five  years,  representing 
the  entire  Christian  world.  The  legislative  function  of  the 
Papacy  may  be  eliminated  from  the  executive,  as  in  the  best 
modem  States.  The  judicial  function  of  the  Papacy  may  be 
separated  by  the  organisation  of  a  supreme  court  of  Christen- 
dom. There  is  nothing  in  any  infallible  decision  of  Councils 
and  Popes  that  in  any  way  prevents  some  such  transforma- 
tion of  the  Papacy  as  is  here  conceived  of.  This  ideal  may 
be  in  its  details  an  illusion — doubdess  most  will  think  it 
such^but  whether  the  outlines  of  this  ideal  and  its  details 


220  CHURCH  UNITY 

be  mistaken  in  whole  or  in  part,  it  is  certain,  as  Jesus  Christ 
our  Saviour  reigns  over  his  Church  and  the  world,  that  some 
day,  in  some  way,  the  Papacy  will  be  reformed  so  as  to  cor- 
respond with  his  ideal,  and  will  be  so  transformed  as  to  make 
it  the  executive  head  of  a  universal  Church. 


VIII 
INFALLIBILITY,  TRUE  AND  FALSE 

One  of  the  most  difficult  questions  that  confront  the 
student  of  Religion  is  the  question  of  authority.  It  is  a 
dangerous  subject  to  discuss,  because  theologians  and 
Churches  are  greatly  divided  about  it,  and  they  feel  that  their 
own  personal  and  historic  positions  depend  upon  it.  And 
yet  the  serious  problems  involved  in  it  must  be  discussed, 
and  their  solutions  sought,  if  there  is  to  be  any  real  progress 
in  Theology,  and  a  removal  of  the  obstacles  to  the  Reunion 
of  Christendom.  Some  years  ago  I  was  condemned  for 
heresy  because  I  said,  in  an  Inaugural  Address,^  that  there 
were  "three  great  fountains  of  divine  Authority,  the  Bible, 
the  Church  and  the  Reason."  I  stated  a  simple  fact  recog- 
nised by  all  the  older  historical  Churches,  but  one  that  was 
overlooked  by  my  opponents,  who  thought,  either  that  I  was 
depreciating  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  or  that  I  was  un- 
duly exalting  the  authority  of  the  Church,  or  that  I  was 
exaggerating  the  authority  of  the  Reason.  There  was  no 
agreement  among  those  who  condemned  me  except  that  I 
was  wrong.  In  that  address  I  considered  the  questions  of 
authority  and  certainty.  I  said  nothing  of  infallibility  further 
than  to  take  the  position  that  "  the  Bible  is  the  only  infallible 
rule  of  faith  and  practice."  The  question  of  infallibility 
has  been  much  before  my  mind  since  my  condemnation.  I 
have  not  as  yet  reached  final  conclusions,  but  I  have  some 
tentative  suggestions  for  the  consideration  of  scholars. 

Man,  as  an  intelligent  being,  ever  seeks  knowledge.  He  can- 
not be  satisfied  with  uncertainty.    He  must  have  the  truth  and 

*  The  Authority  of  Holy  Scripture. 
221 


222  CHURCH  UNITY 

be  assured  of  it.  In  the  last  analysis,  truth  in  religion  rests 
upon  authority  and  certainty  upon  infallibility.  There  are 
three  great  fountains  of  divine  authority,  the  Bible,  the  Church 
and  the  Reason.  Each  of  these  imparts  certainty  to  mankind. 
It  depends  upon  circumstances  and  training  which  one  of 
these  men  may  chiefly  use,  whether  they  rely  upon  one  of 
them  almost  exclusively,  or  use  two  or  three  of  them  in 
varied  relations.  There  are  few  who  are  willing  to  take  an 
agnostic  position;  and  even  these  are  not  content  with  it. 
Their  aggressive  agnosticism  makes  it  evident  that  they  are 
only  nominally  agnostic. 

The  history  of  religion  shows  that  an  infallible  authority 
is  necessary,  because  in  religion  everything  depends  upon 
God  and  what  God  would  have  men  be  and  do.  God  has 
not  left  the  world  without  a  witness.  In  the  Reason  the 
voice  of  God  speaks  within  a  man.  In  the  Bible  God  speaks 
in  sacred  records.  In  the  Church  God  speaks  in  divine  in- 
stitutions. In  fact,  through  all  history  men  have  been  made 
certain  of  their  possession  of  divine  life  and  truth  by  divine 
voices  speaking  through  these  media.  The  reality  of  this 
experience  cannot  be  questioned  without  an  unwarranted 
scepticism,  which,  if  used  in  other  departments  of  human 
experience  than  religion,  would  undermine  and  destroy  all 
institutions,  all  knowledge  and  all  life.  The  scientific  ex- 
planation of  this  experience  in  its  varied  forms  is  diflficult, 
and  men  cannot  be  justly  blamed  for  different  theories  about 
it.  But  facts  and  truth  are  not  dependent  upon  theories 
about  them. 

Jesus  Christ,  when  he  had  accomplished  his  redemptive 
work  on  earth,  ascended  to  his  heavenly  throne  to  carry  it 
on  to  completion.  He  did  not  leave  his  disciples  on  a  troubled 
sea  as  "babes  tossed  to  and  fro  and  carried  about  with 
every  wind  of  doctrine,  by  the  sleight  of  men,  in  craftiness, 
after  the  wiles  of  error."  He  gave  aposdes,  prophets,  evan- 
gelists, pastors  and  teachers  "  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints, 
unto  the  work  of  ministering,  unto  the  building  up  the  body 
of  Christ  till  we  all  attain  unto  the  unity  of  the  faith,  and 


INFALLIBILITY,   TRUE   AND   FALSE  223 

of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God,  unto  a  full-grown  man, 
unto  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fulness  of  Christ."^ 

The  Christian  Church  in  its  great  historic  branches  has 
always  recognised  the  three  great  fountains  of  divine  au- 
thority as  sources  of  infallible  guidance.  The  differences 
have  only  been  in  the  relative  importance  given  to  them. 
Authority  in  Religion,  and  its  corollary  Infallibility,  have 
been  more  discussed  in  the  last  century  than  ever  before: 
the  authority  of  the  Reason  chiefly  by  philosophers;  the 
authority  of  the  Church  chiefly  by  Roman  Catholics,  and 
the  authority  of  the  Bible  chiefly  by  Protestants.  Criticism 
in  its  various  forms  has  compelled  these  investigations.  The 
same  principles  in  great  measure  govern  the  three  alike. 
The  solution  of  the  problem  of  any  one  of  them  is  so  involved 
in  the  problem  of  the  others  that  the  final  solution  will  be  the 
solution  of  them  all. 

I.    THE  INFALLIBILITY  OF  THE  REASON 

The  Reason  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  reasoning 
powers,  as  that  more  fundamental  function  of  the  soul 
upon  which  all  reasoning  depends,  that  function  which  de- 
termines the  fundamental  principles  of  thought,  of  morals 
and  of  religion,  principles  which  do  not  depend  upon  ex- 
perience, but  which  are  prior  to  all  experience — innate  and 
inseparable  from  human  nature  as  such.  The  metaphysical 
reason  gives  infallible  decisions,  which  limit  and  define  all 
intellectual  activities.  The  moral  reason,  or  the  Conscience, 
gives  an  ultimate  decision  in  matters  of  morals.  The  re- 
ligious Reason,  or  religious  Feeling,  as  it  may  be  variously 
termed,  is  the  vital  cord  which  binds  man  to  God  and  which 
is  divine  authority  in  all  religious  affairs.  In  this  discussion 
I  limit  myself  to  the  moral  and  religious  Reason.  We  have 
to  determine  in  what  sense  and  to  what  extent  it  is  infallible. 

(1)  It  is  evident  from  human  experience  that  we  cannot 
rely  upon  the  Conscience  to  decide  abstract  questionsy  whether 
^Eph,  IV.  11-16, 


224  CHURCH   UNITY 

they  are  right  or  wrong,  well  pleasing  or  displeasing  to  God. 
If  we  bring  before  the  bar  of  the  conscience  anything  of  that 
kind,  we  wait  in  vain  for  a  decision.  We  must  distinguish 
the  conscience  from  moral  judgments  based  upon  more  or 
less  consideration,  or  upon  habits,  or  formulated  principles 
of  action. 

(2)  Even  concrete  questions  which  do  not  involve  moral 
or  religious  action,  have  no  decision  from  the  Conscience. 

(3)  Practical  questions  that  concern  others  than  ourselves, 
the  Conscience  will  not  decide.  The  Conscience  is  the  Con- 
science of  the  individual.  It  needs  not  the  warning,  "  Judge 
not,"  that  Jesus  gave  to  his  disciples.  We  may  judge  others 
by  our  opinions,  feelings,  and  determinations  of  our  will 
against  them,  but  our  Conscience  will  not  sit  in  judgment 
upon  them.  The  function  of  our  Conscience  is  to  judge 
ourselves,  not  others. 

(4)  The  Conscience  of  the  individual  decides  questions 
of  morals  and  religion  for  the  individual  in  the  time  of  action, 
and  decides  them  with  final  authority  for  the  individual. 

When  a  man  acts  in  moral  and  religious  matters,  he  must 
either  ignore  the  Conscience  altogether,  or  act  in  accord  with 
its  decisions,  or  act  against  it.  In  the  latter  case  a  man  in- 
curs the  most  serious  guilt.  The  authority  of  the  Conscience 
is  infallible,  notwithstanding  apparent  inconsistencies.  The 
Conscience  will  decide  for  one  course  of  action  for  one  man 
and  for  another  for  another  man.  The  Conscience  will  de- 
cide one  way  at  one  time  and  another  way  at  another  time, 
in  the  same  man.  The  explanation  for  these  differences  is 
not  in  any  defect  in  the  Conscience.  These  inconsistencies 
do  not  involve  any  impeachment  of  its  infallible  authority. 
They  are  to  be  explained  rather  by  the  different  circum- 
stances that  envelop  the  cases  and  make  them  really  different. 
The  Conscience  decides  like  a  court  of  justice  upon  the  case 
in  hand,  and  does  not  itself  make  any  change  in  the  case.  If 
the  case  is  not  properiy  presented  at  the  bar  of  the  court,  the 
decision  will  be  correct  so  far  as  the  case  before  the  court  is 
concerned,  but  may  be  altogether  incorrect  as  to  the  real 


INFALLIBILITY,  TRUE  AND   FALSE  225 

merits  of  the  case.  A  man  usually  does  not  honestly  and 
sincerely  present  the  case  before  the  bar  of  Conscience. 
Commonly,  the  Conscience  is  neglected  and  men  act  in  ac- 
cordance with  habit,  or  principles,  or  their  own  wilful  judg- 
ment after  more  or  less  reflection.  They  do  not  submit  their 
case  to  the  Conscience.  Or  if  in  their  perplexity  they  appeal 
to  the  Conscience,  they  present  the  case  in  such  an  insincere 
way  that  they  become  advocates  for  the  wrong  side,  and  so 
pervert  the  case  that  the  judgment  can  only  be  the  way  they 
wish  it.  If  we  appeal  to  the  Conscience,  we  must  earnestly 
desire  only  the  right  decision  and  be  willing  to  follow  that 
decision  at  all  costs.  As  Jesus  said :  "  If  any  man  willeth  to 
do  His  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  teaching  whether  it  be  of 
Grod."*  We  may  deceive  ourselves  and  mislead  our  Con- 
science to  our  own  destruction.  We  may  grieve  the  divine 
Spirit  within  us,  so  that  He  may  give  us  over  to  our  own  de- 
ceits and  follies.  But  we  should  not  impeach  the  infallible 
authority  of  the  voice  of  God  in  the  Conscience,  which  will 
always  guide  aright  when  there  is  an  entire  willingness  to  be 
guided. 

The  result  to  which  we  have  come  is  this :  The  Conscience 
gives  infallible  guidance  in  any  practical  matter  of  our  own 
religion  and  morals,  but  neither  in  abstract  questions,  nor 
in  concrete  questions  apart  from  our  own  action  or  when 
involving  the  action  of  others.  It  gives  no  rules  of  conduct; 
but  only  a  judicial  decision  of  the  particular  action  we  are 
called  upon  to  take,  in  the  particular  circumstances  which 
surround  it  at  the  time,  and  in  the  light  of  the  knowledge 
brought  before  it. 

The  Westminster  Confession  gives  an  instance  of  an  in- 
fallible decision  made  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  through  the  re- 
ligious feeling,  in  the  assurance  of  Faith. 

This  certainty  is  not  a  bare  conjectural  and  probable  persuasion, 
grounded  upon  a  fallible  hope;  but  an  infallible  assurance  of  faith 
founded  upon  the  divine  truth  of  the  promises  of  salvation,  the  inward 
evidences  of  those  graces  unto  which  these  promises  are  made,  the  testi- 

» John  vii.  17. 


226  CHURCH  UNITY 

mony  of  the  spirit  of  adoption,  witnessing  within  our  spirits  that  we  are 
the  children  of  God:  which  Spirit  is  the  earnest  of  our  inheritance 
whereby  we  are  sealed  to  the  day  of  redemption.     (Chap,  xviii.  2.) 

This  illustrates  quite  well  the  divine  guidance  through  the 
moral  and  religious  Reason.  It  is  a  witness  or  testimony 
to  a  particular  case  or  thing,  a  final  infallible  decision  for  the 
individual,  but  not  an  infallible  rule  for  himself  or  for  others. 

If  these  definitions  are  correct,  it  is  evident  that  we  cannot 
build  our  religion  upon  the  Christian  consciousness  as  such,  or 
Christian  experience,  or  the  conclusions  of  the  intelligence 
by  the  use  of  the  reasoning  powers,  or  the  decision  of  our  or- 
dinary moral  judgments.  All  these  give  us  only  probability, 
not  certainty.  They  cannot  be  regarded  as  authoritative 
or  fundamental.  They  cannot  be  brought  into  the  category 
of  divine  authority.  They  are  altogether  human.  The  only 
religious  experience  that  is  authoritative  and  infallible  is 
that  which  the  conscience  and  the  religious  feeling  give  us, 
in  innate,  a  priori,  immediate  decisions,  the  voice  of  God 
Himself  within  us,  where  doubt  and  uncertainty  are  impossible. 

II.    THE  INFALLIBILITY  OF  THE  CHURCH 

The  Infallibility  of  the  Church  is  maintained  by  the 
Roman  Catholic,  Greek  and  Oriental  Churches.  All  these 
recognise  the  infallibility  of  (Ecumenical  Councils.  The 
Roman  Catholics  limit  their  infallibility  to  such  of  their 
decrees  as  are  approved  by  the  Pope.  They  also  assert  the 
infallibility  of  Papal  decrees  under  certain  defined  circum- 
stances even  when  apart  from  conciliar  action.  The  Protes- 
tant bodies  deny  the  infallibility  of  Councils  as  well  as  of  Popes; 
and  yet  they  implicitly  claim  divine  authority  for  their  own 
institutions  and  doctrines.  In  fact,  the  Protestant  bodies 
have  left  this  question,  like  many  others,  in  which  they  differed 
from  the  pre-Reformation  Church,  in  a  very  uncertain 
position.  Thus  the  Westminster  Confession  asserts  that 
"the  presence  of  Christ  and  his  Spirit  makes  effectual  the 


INFALLIBILITY,   TRUE  AND   FALSE  227 

ministry,  oracles  and  ordinances  of  God  unto  the  Church."  * 
But  it  does  not  define  what  is  meant  by  *' making  these  ef- 
fectual." Is  not  the  action  of  Christ  and  his  Spirit  divine, 
certain,  infallible  action  ?  Can  we  say  that  it  is  fallible  and 
uncertain  ?    So  in  the  definition  of  effectual  calling 

God  is  pleased  in  His  appointed  and  accepted  time,  effectually  to 
call  by  His  Word  and  Spirit  out  of  that  state  of  sin  and  death  in  which 
they  are  by  nature,  to  grace  and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ;  enlightening 
their  minds  spiritually  and  savingly  to  understand  the  things  of  God; 
taking  away  their  heart  of  stone  and  giving  unto  them  a  heart  of  flesh, 
renewing  their  wills,  and  of  His  almighty  power  determining  them  to 
that  which  is  good  and  effectually  drawing  them  to  Jesus  Christ. 
(Chap.  X.) 

The  Confession  takes  the  ground  that  all  this  is  through 
the  means  of  grace  and  ordinances  of  the  Church,  and  not 
ordinarily,  at  least,  apart  from  the  Church,  for  it  distinctly 
says:  "out  of  which  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  sal- 
vation." ^  Does  not  this  effectual  enlightenment  imply 
infallibility,  just  as  truly  as  does  the  effectual  drawing  imply 
almighty  power,  as  is  distinctly  stated  ?  Is  it  possible  to  think 
of  such  an  effectual  calling  as  uncertain  and  fallible?  It  is 
true  that  the  Westminster  Confession  states  that  "all  Synods 
or  councils  since  the  apostles*  times,  whether  general  or 
particular,  may  err,  and  many  have  erred ;  therefore  they  are 
not  to  be  made  the  ride  of  faith  and  practice,  but  to  be  used 
as  a  help  in  both."  ^  But  that  is  not  altogether  consistent 
with  the  composition  of  the  Westminster  Confession  itself 
and  the  requirements  of  subscription  thereto.  For  that 
document  certainly  is  set  forth  as  binding  upon  all  ministers 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  The  American  Presbyterian 
term  of  subscription  represents  that  it  is  "  the  system  of  doc- 
trine contained  in  Holy  Scripture"  and  thereby  gives  a  formal 
justification  for  its  use.  But  this  is  no  real  justification, 
for,  in  fact,  the  Westminster  Confession  gives  a  final,  au- 
thoritative interpretation  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  and  no 
one  can  appeal  from  the  Confession  to  the  Scriptures  as  a 

» Chap.  XXV.  3.  '  Chap.  xxv.  2.  » Chap.  xxxi.  11. 


228  CHURCH  UNITY 

higher  authority  against  it.  The  Presbyterian  Churches, 
in  fact,  just  as  truly  as  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  require 
their  ministers  to  accept  the  Holy  Scripture  "according  to 
that  sense  which  our  holy  Mother  Church  has  held  and 
does  hold,  to  which  it  belongs  to  judge  of  the  true  sense  and 
interpretation  of  the  Scriptures";  and  they  allow  liberty  of 
interpretation  only  exactly  where  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  allows  it,  namely,  as  regards  those  things  in  Holy 
Scripture  not  already  authoritatively  interpreted  by  the 
Church.  The  Protestant  Churches  grant  liberty  of  con- 
science, to  deny  the  infallible  authority  of  the  Church,  with 
one  hand,  and  take  it  back  with  the  other. 

If  the  Church  is  a  divine  institution,  and  God  speaks  to 
mankind  through  the  ministry  of  the  Word,  the  authority  of 
the  keys,  and  the  administration  of  the  Sacraments,  there 
must  be  in  the  Church,  in  some  sense,  not  only  authority  but 
divine  authority,  and  if  divine,  then  certain  and  infallible. 
The  problem  is,  wherein  is  this  authority  lodged,  and  how 
extensive  is  it  in  form  and  substance? 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  alone  has  attempted  to 
limit  and  define  the  Infallibility  of  the  Church.  Therefore 
we  must  study  its  definitions  as  a  help  to  the  solution  of  our 
problem,  whether  we  accept  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope  or  not. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Infallibility  of  the  Church  was  in  a 
very  indefinite  and  uncertain  condition  until  it  was  defined 
by  the  Vatican  Council.  Theologians  were  uncertain  as 
to  the  extent  of  its  subject-matter,  and  whether  the  infalli- 
bility was  lodged  in  (Ecumenical  Council,  or  in  the  Pope,  or 
in  the  consensus  of  the  Church.  The  Vatican  Council  made 
a  great  and  wholesome  advance  when  it  defined  the  Infalli- 
bility of  the  Church.  The  opposition  to  its  decisions  by 
many  of  the  best  Roman  Catholic  scholars  was  more  academic 
than  practical.   The  following  is  the  definition  of  the  dogma: 

It  is  a  dogma  divinely  revealed:  that  the  Roman  pontiff when  dis- 
charging the  oflBce  of  Pastor  and  Teacher  of  all  Christians,  by  reason  of 
his  supreme  Apostolic  authority,  he  defines  a  doctrine  regarding  Faith 
and  Morals  to  be  held  by  the  whole  Church,  he  by  the  divine  assistance 


INFALLIBILITY,  TRUE  AND  FALSE  229 

promised  to  him  in  blessed  Peter,  possesses  that  infallibility  with  which 
the  Blessed  Redeemer  willeth  that  His  Church  should  be  endowed,  in 
defining  doctrines  regarding  Faith  and  Morals,  and  therefore  such 
definitions  of  the  said  Roman  pontiff  are  of  themselves  inalterable  and 
not  from  the  consent  of  the  Church. 

According  to  the  best  authorities  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  oral  and  written,  this  definition  may  be  interpreted 
as  follows: 

(1)  Infallibility  is  limited  to  "a  doctrine  regarding  Faith 
and  Morals.**  Everything  else  is  excluded  from  the  area  of 
infallibility,  i.  e.,  the  government,  discipline,  institutions 
and  worship  of  the  Church,  and  all  doctrines  that  are  not  in- 
cluded in  Faith  and  Morals.  Everything  not  so  defined  is 
within  the  realm  of  things  that  may  be  changed  in  accordance 
with  the  progress  of  the  Church  in  wisdom  and  efficiency. 

(2)  Infallibility  of  doctrines  regarding  Faith  and  Morals 
is  limited  to  those  "/o  be  held  by  the  whole  Church."  Not 
all  doctrines  regarding  Faith  and  Morals,  held  by  teachers 
of  the  Church  and  promulgated  by  the  authority  of  the 
Church,  are  infallible;  but  only  those  that  are  universal  in 
their  character.  All  others,  which  are  not  universal,  are 
outside  the  limits  of  infallibility.  It  is  evident  that  by  far  the 
greater  part  of  the  dogmas  of  Scholastic  Theology  are  by  this 
definition  excluded  from  infallibility,  and  are  made  by  this 
decision  variable.  Only  a  limited  number  of  the  dogmas 
of  the  theologians  can  be  included  under  the  category  of 
universality;  and  still  more  limited  are  those  which  have  not 
been  already  defined  and  are  within  the  limits  of  a  possible 
definition  in  the  future. 

(3)  This  clause:  "To  be  held  by  the  whole  Church," 
implies  by  its  historic  usage,  not  merely  that  they  are  to  be 
held  by  bishops,  priests,  and  regulars,  but  also  by  the  peo- 
ple. The  people  must  accept  them  and  hold  them  as  dog- 
mas upon  which  their  salvation  depends.  They  must,  there- 
fore be  not  theoretical  dogmas,  but  'practical  dogmas,  for 
guidance  in  faith  and  practice.  This  clause:  "To  be  held  by 
the  whole  Church,"  also  implies  that  the  definition  is  in  re- 


230  CHURCH  UNITY 

sponse  to  needs  experienced  by  the  whole  Church.  The 
Church  throughout  the  world  gives  voice  to  the  needs  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  It  calls  upon  the  Pope  to  give  the  official 
decision  in  the  burning  questions  that  excite  and  disturb  the 
Christian  world.  The  definition  states  that  the  decisions 
are  of  themselves  inalterable  and  not  from  the  consensus  of 
the  Church.  This  does  not  imply  that  the  definitions  are 
altogether  independent  of  the  consent  of  the  Church,  but 
that  they  do  not  wait  for  the  consent  of  the  Church  in  order 
thereby  to  become  infallible.  The  consent  of  the  Church 
has  already  been  given  when  it  appeals  to  the  supreme  au- 
thority in  the  Church  for  the  definition  of  the  question  of 
faith  or  morals,  which  demands  a  solution  that  the  Chris- 
tian people,  scattered  throughout  the  world,  cannot  them- 
selves give. 

(4)  Infallibility  is  limited  to  a  doctrine  regarding  faith 
and  morals  to  be  held  by  the  whole  Church,  which  the 
Roman  Pontiff  defines.  The  dogmas  of  Councils  not  de- 
fined by  the  Pope  have  no  infallible  authority.  The  dog- 
mas of  the  theologians  and  of  the  fathers,  however  much 
they  are  to  be  reverenced,  have  no  infallible  authority.  The 
area  of  infallible  definitions  of  the  Popes  is  quite  limited, 
as  much  so  as  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformed,  Lutheran 
and  Anglican  Articles  or  Confessions  of  Faith,  which  though 
not  regarded  as  infallible,  are  yet  so  authoritative  that  dis- 
sent from  them  involves  withdrawal  or  expulsion  from  these 
Protestant  Churches. 

(5)  Infallibility  is  not  in  the  definition  of  the  Pope,  as  a 
person;  but  in  the  Pope  as  an  official  "when  discharging 
the  office  of  Pastor  and  Teacher  of  all  Christians.*^  The 
Pope  as  an  individual  may  be  a  heretic,  as  have  been  some 
of  the  popes.  The  Pope  may  write  an  official  letter  defining 
a  doctrine,  in  an  heretical  way,  as  did  Honorius.  The  Pope 
may  define  a  doctrine,  when  it  is  submitted  to  him  after  care- 
ful consideration  by  one  or  more  of  the  congregations  in 
Rome,  and  may  decide  it  wrong.  In  no  one  of  these  in- 
stances does  the  Pope  define  a  dogma  in  the  meaning  of 


INFALLIBILITY,  TRUE  AND  FALSE  231 

the  definition.  It  must  not  only  be  an  official  act,  but  it 
must  be  an  official  act  of  a  supreme  religious  character,  a 
transaction  under  the  most  solemn  circumstances.  The 
Pope  acts  in  such  a  case  "By  reason  of  his  supreme  apos- 
tolic authority" — "by  the  divine  assistance  promised  to  him 
in  blessed  Peter."  He  acts  under  the  immediate  guidance 
of  the  divine  Spirit;  the  voice  of  God  speaks  in  and  through 
him,  as  it  did  in  apostles  and  prophets,  and  therefore  he 
gives  infallible  definitions  which  "are  of  themselves  in- 
alterable." Only  one  such  definition  has  been  made  in 
modern  times,  that  of  the  "Immaculate  Conception  of  the 
blessed  Virgin,"  by  Pope  Pius  IX,  and  undoubtedly  that  ex- 
pressed the  wellnigh  unanimous  faith  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
world. 

(6)  The  infallibility  of  the  Church  is  still  further  limited 
to  the  definition  of  dogmas  divinely  revealed  in  Holy  Script- 
ure and  in  apostolic  tradition.  The  Church  has  no  au- 
thority to  make  new  dogmas;  but  her  authority  is  limited  to 
the  definition  of  dogmas  divinely  revealed  at  the  original  es- 
tablishment of  Christianity  by  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles. 
These  definitions  must  be  in  accord  with  Holy  Scripture 
and  with  apostolic  Christianity.  Inasmuch  as  the  gift  of 
infallibility  is  inherited  from  St.  Peter  through  all  the  Popes 
in  unbroken  succession;  all  the  definitions  of  the  Popes 
since  St.  Peter,  given  in  accordance  with  this  definition,  have 
been  infallible;  and,  therefore,  all  popes  from  now  on  must 
define  in  accordance  with  the  definitions  of  all  the  previous 
popes.  There  may  be  developments  in  the  definition,  but 
no  new  definition  can  be  made  that  will  in  any  way  contra- 
vene the  definitions  of  Holy  Scripture,  or  apostolic  tradition, 
or  of  the  Church  in  its  previous  history. 

(7)  The  infallible  definition  of  a  doctrine  is  limited  to  the 
doctrine  itself ,  and  is  not  extended  to  the  formida  in  which  the 
doctrine  is  expressed.  All  human  language  is  fallible.  At 
the  best,  language  is  an  inadequate  vehicle  of  thought. 
The  doctrine  is  as  infallible  in  one  language  as  in  another, 
in  translations  as  in  the  original  tongue  in  which  it  was  de- 


232  CHURCH  UNITY 

fined.  Indeed,  the  same  doctrine  has  been  expressed  by  in- 
fallible authority  in  Hebrew  and  Greek  Scriptures,  by  the 
Church  in  Greek  and  Latin,  and  then  by  different  formulas 
in  Greek  and  Latin.  If  any  one  formula  were  exclusively 
infallible,  all  the  others  would  be  fallible.  The  infallible 
authority  of  Popes  is  responsible  for  several  variant  forms, 
therefore  the  infallibility  must  be  limited  to  the  doctrine  that 
underlies  all  official  forms  and  to  the  same  doctrine  in  all  the 
varied  forms. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  infallibility  of  the  Church 
has  been  limited  to  comparatively  few,  simple  and  definite 
things.  The  Pope  is  infallible  only  when,  ex  cathedra^  under 
the  influence  of  the  divine  Spirit,  he  defines  a  dogma  of 
faith  and  morals  derived  from  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles 
and  of  universal  importance  for  the  faith  and  practice  of  all 
Christians.  Apart  from  this  he  is  not  infallible.  His  de- 
cisions and  definitions  may  be  incorrect  and  erroneous,  and 
may  be  reversed  by  himself  and  his  successors. 

In  its  definition  of  the  Infallibility  of  the  Pope  and  Coun- 
cils, the  Vatican  Council  made  an  important  step  in  advance 
with  reference  to  the  question  of  infallibility,  even  for  those 
who  are  not  willing  to  lodge  the  infallibility  of  the  Church 
in  the  Pope.  Either  there  is  Infallibility  in  the  Church  or 
there  is  not.  If  not,  there  can  be  no  certainty  in  the  minis- 
terial functions  of  the  Church,  but  at  most  probability. 
Protestantism  in  its  great  branches  certainly  stands  for 
more  than  this.  In  its  hostility  to  the  older  positions,  it  has 
neglected  to  define  its  own  position.  The  Greeks  hold  to  the 
infallibility  of  the  Church,  and  lodge  it  in  (Ecumenical  Coun- 
cils, but  are  uncertain  in  their  limitations  of  it.  Only  the 
Roman  Church  has  worked  out  the  problem,  and  we  must 
follow  her  in  the  main  in  her  limitations,  even  if  we  lodge 
infallibility  elsewhere  than  in  the  Pope  ot  in  (Ecumenical 
Councils. 

It  might  be  lodged,  in  accordance  with  the  saying  of  Vin- 
cent of  Lerins,  "Semper,  ubique  et  ab  omnibus,"  in  the 


INFALLIBILITY,   TRUE  AND   FALSE  233 

consensus  of  Christifln  antiquity,  a  position  toward  which 
Anglicans  tend.  It  might  be  lodged  theoretically  in  the  con- 
sensus of  Christian  people  throughout  the  world  in  accord- 
ance with  the  principle  of  Augustine,  "Securus  judicat  orbis 
terrarum."  It  matters  not  where  infallibility  is  lodged,  it 
must  be  limited,  very  much  as  it  is  limited  by  the  Vatican 
Council  in  connection  with  Papal  Infallibility. 

Papal  Infallibility  is  an  executive  infallibility,  it  does  not 
give  a  rule  of  Faith — that  is  found  in  Holy  Scripture  and 
in  that  alone.  Papal  Infallibility  interprets,  explains  and 
applies  this  rule  of  Faith  in  executive  decisions  just  as  truly 
as  do  Protestant  ecclesiastical  bodies.  The  practical  differ- 
ence is  that  the  Pope  is  frankly  infallible  whereas  Protestant 
ecclesiastical  bodies  make  themselves  into  little  popes, 
theoretically  fallible,  but  practically  infallible,  despotic 
and  often  less  considerate  of  the  rights  of  the  individual 
than  Papal  courts. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  claims  sovereign  and  absolute 
authority  for  the  Pope  even  in  his  fallible  decisions.  Be- 
yond the  range  of  his  infallible  decisions  there  is  a  vast  and 
practically  unlimited  range  of  fallible  decisions  which  de- 
mand the  same  measure  of  submission  as  do  the  infallible 
ones,  so  that  practically  the  distinction  is  of  little  importance 
save  that  the  infallible  are  irreformable,  the  fallible  are  re- 
formable.  The  crying  need  of  the  Church,  as  is  evident 
from  the  present  extraordinary  tyranny  exercised  against 
the  Modernists,  is  to  limit  this  fallible  authority  and  to  dis- 
tinguish it  practically  as  well  as  theoretically  from  the  in- 
fallible authority.  It  is  probable  that  when  the  Vatican 
Council  reassembles,  as  it  surely  will  ere  long,  it  will  take 
this  question  in  hand  and  make  some  decision  about  it.  It 
is  just  here  that  a  Reform  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
is  not  only  possible  but  probable.  The  Pope  may  be  re- 
duced from  a  theocratic  despot  to  a  limited  monarch,  or  even 
a  constitutional  president  and  primate  of  the  Church.  The 
legislative   and   judicial   functions   now   exercised   by    him 


234  CHURCH  UNITY 

through  cardinals,  monsignori  of  hi^  household,  cabinet, 
or  other  inferior  members  of  the  Curia,  may  be  given  over 
to  a  General  Assembly  or  Council,  meeting  periodically 
to  represent  the  whole  Church.  The  judicial  functions  may 
be  given  over  to  a  bench  of  judges.  Liberty  of  conscience 
and  opinion  may  be  recognised,  defined  and  limited  within 
just  bounds,  and  its  relation  to  the  magisterium  of  the  Church 
satisfactorily  explained.  The  drift  at  present  is  certainly 
not  in  that  direction ;  but  some  such  reform  must  eventually 
be  made  if  ever  there  is  to  be  reconciliation,  peace  and  unity 
in  the  Church. 

How,  then,  may  we  reconcile  the  existing  discord  as  to  the 
Infallibility  of  the  Church?  We  may  do  so  by  rising  to  a 
more  comprehensive  position  that  shall  do  justice  to  all  of 
the  conceptions,  and  harmonise  them  in  a  higher  unity. 
The  great  diflSculty  with  all  the  decisions  of  the  Church, 
whether  by  Pope  or  Council,  is  that  in  most  cases  they  are 
premature.  The  Council  of  Nice  decided  the  Arian  con- 
troversy theoretically  but  not  practically;  for  several  gener- 
ations of  warfare  ensued  before  the  Church  as  a  whole 
adopted  its  conclusions,  and  then  only  after  some  modifica- 
tions of  the  Creed.  The  decisions  of  the  Council  of  Trent 
were  premature.  They  did  not  settle  the  controversies  of 
the  Reformation;  they  emphasised  them  and  embittered 
them,  and  made  them  permanent  in  the  divisions  of  the 
Western  Church.  The  Vatican  Council  forced  the  issue  and 
drove  many  of  the  best  Catholic  scholars  out  of  the  Church, 
because  they  were  not  convinced  of  the  infallibility  of  the 
Pope,  and  therefore  could  not  in  good  conscience  accept  that 
dogma. 

Our  Lord  promised  the  divine  Spirit  to  guide  into  all  the 
Truth,  and  the  Church  should  always  have  waited  patiently 
for  this  infallible  guide  to  do  His  work.  His  decision  is 
given  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  Vincent,  when  the 
Church  everywhere,  at  all  times  and  in  all  its  representatives, 
has  been  guided  by  the  divine  Spirit  to  a  consensus.    That 


INFALLIBILITY,  TRUE  AND  FALSE  235 

decision  becomes  the  decision  of  the  whole  Church  when  the 
whole  Christian  world  gives  its  judgment  with  calm  confidence. 

The  infallibility  of  the  Church  is  in  its  possession  of  the 
infallible  guidance  of  the  divine  Spirit.  The  divine  Spirit 
gradually  guides  the  universal  Church  to  infallible  results. 
The  infallibility  of  the  Church  is  in  this  consensus.  This 
will  eventually  find  expression  in  the  government  and  dis- 
cipline of  the  Church,  in  its  legislative,  judicial  and  executive 
forms;  that  is,  through  Councils  and  Popes.  When  Coun- 
cils and  Popes  sum  up  this  consensus  they  may  be  regarded 
as  infallible,  not  in  themselves,  not  even  in  the  consensus, 
but  because  they  are  the  official  organs  of  the  consensus 
which  is  the  result  of  the  infallible  guidance  of  the  divine 
Spirit.  Usually  Councils  and  Popes  decide  prematurely, 
and  therefore  are  not  altogether  free  from  error.  But,  in 
the  main.  Councils  and  Popes  are  eventually  justified  by 
the  consensus  of  Christianity,  which  revises  their  premature 
definitions  and  makes  them  for  the  first  time  practically  in- 
fallible. 

It  may  be  said  that  this  contravenes  the  statement  of  the 
Vatican  Council,  when  it  says:  "Such  definitions  of  the  said 
Roman  pontiff  are  of  themselves  inalterable  and  not  from 
the  consent  of  the  Church."  And  indeed  it  does,  unless  that 
statement  may  in  some  way  be  qualified.  As  I  have  already 
shown,  it  is  assumed  in  the  definition  that  the  condition  of 
.the  whole  Church  is  such  that  a  decision  of  the  question  at 
issue  is  needed,  and  the  decision  is  a  dogma  that  the  whole 
Church  is  required  to  hold.  Theoretically,  the  consensus 
should  have  been  reached  before  the  decision  was  made, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  decree  of  the  dogma  of  the  Immaculate 
Conception  of  the  Virgin.  If  the  decision  be  premature,  as 
it  has  been  in  most  cases,  it  may  yet  be  infallible  because  of 
the  "divine  assistance  promised  to  him  in  blessed  Peter." 
The  fault  of  the  Church  in  all  such  cases  is,  that  it  does  not 
rely  upon  the  divine  Spirit,  and  the  intrinsic  power  of  the 
Truth,  to  bring  the  dissenters  to  a  consent  to  the  definition 
of  the  Church.     The  Church  usually  attempts  to  compel 


236  CHURCH  UNITY 

their  consent  by  external  authority,  and  the  use  of  material 
forces  of  constraint,  in  a  tyrannical  abuse  of  men's  consciences 
and  intellects. 

If  the  divine  Spirit  has  in  reality  guided  the  Pope  or  the 
Council  to  an  infallible  decision  so  that  the  Truth  of  God 
has  in  fact  been  proclaimed,  then  it  is  evident  that  if  men  of 
good  will  do  not  consent  to  it,  it  is  because  they  have  not 
been  convinced;  and  if  they  have  not  been  convinced,  it  is 
for  the  reason  that  the  truth  has  not  been  stated  with  suffi- 
cient clearness,  with  sufficient  evidence,  and  with  sufficient 
qualifications  to  remove  candid  objections  and  serious  doubts. 
The  fault  is  then  more  with  those  who  define  the  truth  than 
with  those  who  cannot  accept  it.  Instead  of  trying  to  com- 
pel the  mind  and  the  conscience  of  the  doubters  by  external 
authority  with  penalties  for  disobedience,  the  Church  au- 
thorities should  patiently  strive  to  remove  doubts  and 
scruples,  and  to  convince  the  doubter-  by  explanations, 
qualifications  and  arguments.  The  Churches  have  sinned 
over  and  over  against  the  Truth  by  insisting  upon  the  dog- 
matic form  of  the  statement  rather  than  upon  the  Truth 
itself;  and  so  they  have  sacrificed  the  infallible  Truth  to  the 
human  forms  in  which  they  have  presented  it. 

The  infallibility  is  in  the  divine  Truth  and  Fact,  not  in 
any  particular  mode  of  stating  them,  and  these  become  in- 
fallible to  the  Church  when  the  divine  Spirit  gives  the  whole 
Church  possession  of  them  in  a  real  Consensus.  The  official 
organs  of  infallibility  are  infallible  in  so  far  as  they  express 
that  consensus,  whether  they  be  premature  in  their  decisions, 
or  make  them  when  the  Church  is  ripe  for  them. 

III.    THE  INFALLIBILITY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

The  Infallibility  of  the  Bible  is  maintained  by  the  con- 
sensus of  Greeks,  Orientals,  Roman  Catholics  and  Protes- 
tants alike.  But  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  Infallibility 
have  never  been  defined.  It  still  remains  in  an  indefinite 
and   uncertain  state.     Extreme  men  have  urged  that  the 


INFALLIBILITY,   TRUE  AND   FALSE  237 

Infallibility  of  the  Bible  should  extend  to  the  whole  Bible, 
and  everything  in  the  Bible;  but  the  Christian  Church  has 
not  in  any  of  its  great  decisions  officially  adopted  such  a 
position.  The  pre-Reformation  Church  and  the  Reformers 
took  a  healthy  though  indefinite  position  in  the  matter; 
but  later  Protestant  scholastics  went  so  far  as  to  insist  upon 
the  infallibility  of  Hebrew  vowel  points.  Modern  Biblical 
Criticism  has  so  shattered  the  doctrine  of  the  total  infalli- 
bility of  the  Bible  that  it  has  become  necessary  to  distinguish 
in  the  Bible  between  what  is  infallible  and  what  is  not  in- 
fallible. The  tendency  to  make  this  discrimination  is  so 
decided  and  irresistible  that  it  is  usually  made  capriciously 
and  arbitrarily  and  without  sufficient  reasons.  The  only 
way  to  overcome  this  peril  is  to  determine  the  principles  by 
which  the  discrimination  should  be  made. 

The  limitations  that  have  been  made  in  the  study  of  the 
infallibility  of  the  Reason  and  of  the  Church  help  to  make 
discriminations  here  also. 

(1)  The  infallibility  of  the  Bible  should  be  limited  to 
doctrines  regarding  Faith  and  Morals.  All  other  matters 
contained  in  the  Bible  should  be  excluded  from  infallibility. 
Matters  of  Science  are  not  infallible  in  the  Bible  any  more 
than  in  any  other  writing.  Matters  of  Geography,  Chronol- 
ogy and  ordinary  History  are  not  infallible.  The  only  things 
in  History  that  can  be  regarded  as  infallible  are  dogmatic 
facts,  that  is,  realities  of  fact,  event  and  experience  which  in- 
volve doctrines  of  Faith  and  Morals,  and  these  only  so  far  as 
they  involve  such  doctrine.  The  exegetical  principle  of 
Augustine  that  "whatever  cannot  be  referred  to  good  con- 
duct or  truth  of  faith  must  be  regarded  as  figurative,"^  really 
amounts  to  this;  for  it  rules  out  everything  else  except  so 
far  as  its  figurative  sense  yields  doctrine  or  morals.  This 
principle  dominated  the  Church  for  more  than  a  thousand 
years.  However  inadequate  it  may  be  as  a  principle  of 
exegesis,  it  yet  practically  limits  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible 
just  where  it  ought  to  be  limited. 

*  Briggs,  Study  of  Holy  Scripture,  pp.  450-1. 


238  CHURCH  UNITY 

(2)  The  Infallibility  of  the  Bible  should  be  limited  to 
those  doctrines  that  have  universal  significance.  Many  mat- 
ters of  doctrine,  even  of  faith  and  morals,  are  only  temporary 
in  their  character,  such  as  the  Levitical  laws  of  purification, 
and  the  ceremonial  institutions  of  the  priestly  Law,  from 
which  Christians  were  exempted  by  the  Apostolic  Council 
of  Jerusalem.  Many  instructions  also  have  only  local  ap- 
plication, as  some  of  the  advice  given  by  St.  Paul  to  the. 
Church  at  Corinth.  It  is  necessary  to  rule  out  all  this 
material  from  the  category  of  infallibility,  even  if  it  had  a 
temporary  and  local  divine  sanction.  Not  everything  that 
has  been  approved  by  God,  or  even  commanded  by  God 
through  his  inspired  prophets,  can  be  regarded  as  infallible. 

(3)  The  Infallibility  of  the  Bible  should  be  limited  to  mat- 
ters that  concern  human  salvation.  As  the  Articles  of  Re- 
ligion of  the  Church  of  England  say:  (Article  VI.) 

Holy  Scripture  containeth  all  things  necessary  to  salvation;  so  that 
whatsoever  is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be  proved  thereby,  is  not  to  be  re- 
quired of  any  man  that  it  should  be  believed  as  an  article  of  the  Faith, 
or  be  thought  requisite  or  necessary  to  salvation.     (Article  II.) 

This  is  the  chief  purpose  of  Holy  Scripture,  to  make  known 
to  men  the  way  of  salvation.  Anything  apart  from  that 
purpose  is  merely  incidental  and  circumstantial.  Only 
doctrines,  and  doctrinal  facts  and  events  that  concern  human 
salvation,  should  be  regarded  as  infallible. 

(4)  The  Infallibility  of  the  Bible  should  be  limited  to 
practical  matters.  Merely  theoretical  questions,  even  when 
they  are  theories  of  prophets  and  apostles,  may  not  concern 
the  Christian  life.  The  American  Presbyterian  term  of 
ministerial  subscription  is  instructive  here.  The  minister 
subscribes  to  the  statement  that  the  Bible  is  the  only  infallible 
rule  of  Faith  and  Practice.  If  the  Infallibility  of  the  Bible 
had  been  limited  to  doctrines  of  Faith  and  Practice,  the  history 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  would  have  been  more  fruitful, 
and  they  would  be  better  prepared  for  the  future  develop- 
ment of  Theology  than  they  are  at  the  present  time.    The 


INFALLIBILITY,   TRUE   AND   FALSE  239 

infallibility  of  the  Bible  should  be  confined  to  the  Gospel 
in  the  Bible,  the  so-called  little  Bibles,  those  passages  which 
contain  saving  doctrine  and  vital  transforming  power  upon 
human  life  and  conduct. 

(5)  The  Infallibility  of  the  Bible  should  be  limited  to  the 
substance  of  doctrine,  and  not  be  extended  to  the  form  of 
words  or  the  structural  facts  and  events  in  which  it  is  encased. 
Verbal  inspiration  is  an  impossibility  in  view  of  the  results  of 
modern  Criticism.  It  is  also  impossible  in  view  of  the  varia- 
tions in  language  and  formula  in  which  these  doctrines  are 
expressed. 

(6)  The  Infallibility  of  the  Bible  is  not  in  the  Bible  as  a 
written  and  printed  library  of  books,  but  in  the  divine 
Spirit  speaking  through  these  books  to  the  Christian  indi- 
vidual and  the  Christian  Church.  The  early  Protestants 
took  this  position  when  they  regarded,  as  the  only  divine 
evidence  which  gave  assurance  and  certainty  that  the  Bible 
was  divine,  the  voice  of  the  divine  Spirit  speaking  in  and 
through  the  Scriptures  to  the  Christian.  But  later  Protes- 
tants fell  back  from  this  position,  which  regarded  the  Bible 
as  a  means  of  grace,  to  a  scholastic  and  pedantic  position 
that  the  authority  of  Scripture  was  in  the  written  records. 
It  is  ofteji  objected  to  this  position  of  the  early  Protestants 
that  it  gives  to  every  individual  the  right  to  make  his  own 
Bible.  In  fact,  every  pious  man  does  have  his  own  Bible, 
in  the  use  of  those  passages  which  are  his  favourites  because 
the  divine  Spirit  has  spoken  through  them  to  him.  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  such  individuals  are  not  reluctant  to  ac- 
cept the  Bible  of  the  Church  as  containing  multitudes  of 
passages  which  have  influenced  others,  as  much  as  his  own 
choice  passages  have  influenced  him. 

Indeed,  this  objection  is  more  theoretical  than  practical. 
The  individual  Christian  must  follow  the  voice  of  the  divine 
Spirit  when  it  speaks  to  him  in  his  Conscience,  so  also,  just 
as  truly,  when  the  Spirit  speaks  to  him  in  Scripture.  He 
may  be  deceived  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  The  de- 
ception is  not  in   the  divine  Spirit,  whether  speaking  in 


240  CHURCH  UNITY 

Conscience  or  in  Scripture,  but  in  his  own  failure  to  dis- 
tinguish between  these  and  his  own  desires,  opinions  and 
self-will.  He  should  recognise  that  there  are  other  con- 
sciences besides  his  own,  and  that  the  divine  Spirit  speaks 
in  Scripture  to  others  as  well  as  to  himself,  and  that  in  this 
consensus  of  Christians  he  has  a  valid  means  whereby  to 
verify  his  own  private  experience.  The  voice  of  the  Church 
is  the  sum  of  the  experience  of  a  multitude  as  truly  guided 
as  he  has  been.  If  there  remain  discord  and  uncertainty 
after  such  a  serious  attempt  at  verification  or  correction, 
his  only  help  is  to  again  raise  the  question  before  the  Con- 
science and  the  Bible,  and  to  follow  the  voice  of  the  divine 
Spirit  to  him  at  all  costs. 

In  fact,  the  Council  at  Jerusalem,  according  to  Acts  XV, 
took  just  the  position  we  have  been  trying  to  define  with 
reference  to  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  St.  Peter  said: 
"Why  tempt  ye  God,  that  ye  should  put  a  yoke  upon  the 
neck  of  the  disciples,  which  neither  our  fathers  nor  we  were 
able  to  bear?"  If  St.  Peter  were  here  to-day,  might  he  not 
say  the  same  with  reference  to  the  New  Testament  that  he 
did  then  with  reference  to  the  Old  Testament  ?  The  Coun- 
cil decided:  "It  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Spirit  and  to  us 
to  lay  upon  you  no  greater  burden  than  these  necessary 
things;  that  ye  abstain  from  things  sacrificed  to  idols,  and  from 
blood,  and  from  things  strangled,  and  from  fornication." 
Thus,  under  the  guidance  of  the  divine  Spirit,  they  threw 
aside  forever  all  the  rest  of  the  civil  and  ceremonial  laws  of 
the  Old  Testament.  And  even  some  of  these  things  re- 
served in  their  apostolic  decision  were  subsequently  thrown 
aside  by  the  Church.  If  so  much  of  the  Old  Testament 
could  be  thrown  aside  by  the  Church  under  the  guidance  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  no  longer  applicable,  as  not  having  regard  to 
Christian  salvation  and  the  practice  of  the  Christian  life; 
it  may  be  the  case  that  the  same  kind  of  discrimination 
should  be  made  in  the  New  Testament  also;  for  there  are  a 
multitude  of  things  in  the  New  Testament  that  are  local  and 
temporal  in  their  character,  that  are  theoretical  and  occasional 


INFALLIBILITY,   TRUE  AND   FALSE  241 

in  their  nature,  and  which  have  nothing  to  do  with  human 
salvation  and  a  practical  religious  life.  Some  day  a  new 
Council  of  Jerusalem  under  a  successor  of  St.  Peter  may  dis- 
tinguish between  the  infallible  and  fallible  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment likewise. 

The  Church  has,  in  fact,  through  all  her  history  pursued 
this  course  of  interpreting  and  defining  doctrines  regarding 
Faith  and  Morals  contained  ip  Holy  Scripture  under  the 
guidance  of  the  divine  Spirit.  The  Church  has  always 
recognised  the  three  great  fountains  of  divine  authority  as 
the  media  by  which  the  divine  grace  of  enlightenment  and 
spiritual  invigoration  comes  forth  upon  mankind.  There 
can  be  no  real  conflict  between  the  three  sources.  Any  ap- 
parent conflict  is  due  to  the  erroneous  use  of  them  by  fallible 
men  and  the  false  interpretation,  or  exaggeration,  of  their 
decisions. 

IV.    APOSTOLIC  TRADITION 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  gives  Apostolic  Tradition 
a  place  alongside  of  Holy  Scripture  as  having  divine  au- 
thority. This  tradition  must  be  (1)  apostolic.  It  must  go 
back  to  the  apostles  or  to  Jesus  Christ  himself:  "The  un- 
written traditions,  which,  received  by  the  apostles  from  the 
mouth  of  Christ  himself,  or  from  the  apostles  themselves, 
the  Holy  Ghost  dictating,  have  come  down  even  unto  us, 
transmitted,  as  it  were,  from  hand  to  hand."  ^ 

(2)  It  must  have  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers. 
There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  Roman  Catholics  have 
exaggerated  this  tradition  and  that  Protestants  have  no 
less  certainly  depreciated  it.  Cassander  recognised  and 
stated  the  inconsistency  of  Protestants  in  this  regard.  He 
called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  first  article  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  is  based  on  ancient  tradition,  the  Creed 
of  the  Nicene  Council  and  the  witness  of  the  Fathers  of  the 
Church.  The  Protestants  did  not  make  the  Scripture  the 
*  Council  of  Trent,  Sess.  iv. 


242  CHURCH  UNITY 

only  rule  of  Faith;  but  in  doctrine  and  institution  alike,  they 
gave  great  weight  of  evidence  to  the  Fathers  and  primitive 
tradition.  They  distinguished  in  the  tradition  that  which 
they  accepted  and  that  which  they  did  not  accept  as  valid. 

Biblical  and  Historical  Criticism  have  shown  that  you 
cannot  build  Historical  Christianity  upon  the  Bible  alone. 
Tradition  must  be  regarded  as  also  at  the  foundation  and 
pervading  the  entire  history  of  the  Church.  Other  Churches 
than  the  Roman  use  tradition,  but  in  varying  degrees  of 
recognition,  in  the  order:  Roman,  Greek,  Anglican,  Lutheran, 
Reformed,  Puritan.  The  Puritan  position  is  no  longer 
tenable.  If  a  tradition  is  apostolic  in  origin,  why  should  it 
not  have  equal  authority  to  a  written  tradition?  Did  the 
committing  it  to  writing  give  it  for  the  first  time  divine  au- 
thority and  make  it  infallible  ?  If  there  be  a  unanimous  con- 
sent of  the  Fathers  to  a  Tradition,  is  that  not  of  equal  au- 
thority to  a  creed  ?  Does  the  committing  of  a  tradition  to 
writing  make  it  authoritative  ?  The  weakness  of  the  Roman 
position  is  in  the  separation  of  this  Tradition  and  Consensus 
from  the  authority  of  the  Church,  and  its  classification  with 
that  of  the  Bible.  It  has  some  features  of  the  one  and  some 
features  of  the  other.  At  any  rate,  the  same  qualifications 
and  limitations  should  be  made  here  as  elsewhere. 

It  seems  to  me  that  it  would  be  wiser  to  class  apostolic 
tradition  with  the  authority  of  the  Church,  rather  than  with 
the  authority  of  the  Bible.  It  is  quite  true  that  the  entire 
Scripture  of  the  New  Testament  was  apostolic  tradition 
before  it  was  committed  to  writing,  and  that  the  chief  differ- 
ence between  apostolic  tradition  and  apostolic  writings  is 
that  the  one  is  unwritten,  the  other  written,  and  that  both 
differ  from  other  authority  in  that  they  are  alike  apostolic. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  apostolic  writings  are  writings, 
and  therefore  give  us  a  definite  rule  of  Faith  and  Morals; 
whereas  the  apostolic  tradition,  unwritten  and  unformulated, 
cannot  be  regarded  as  a  rule,  but  only  as  a  help  and  guide. 
That  tradition  can  only  be  determined  by  the  consent  of 
the  Fathers.    That  consent  is  not  a  consent  of  the  apostles. 


INFALLIBILITY,  TRUE  AND  FALSE  243 

but  a  consent  of  the  primitive  Church  with  reference  to  a 
tradition  of  the  apostles.  This  consent  is  not  merely  an 
interpretation  of  tradition;  it  is  a  restatement  of  it,  a  formu- 
lation of  it,  and  a  recording  of  that  tradition  in  which  the 
authority  of  the  Church  is  necessarily  much  more  prominent 
than  it  is  in  the  interpretation  of  Holy  Scripture. 

The  very  fact,  that  a  consensus  of  the  Fathers  is  necessary 
to  verify  apostolic  tradition,  shows  that  the  very  same  principle 
is  involved  as  in  the  determination  of  the  authority  of  the 
Church,  namely,  the  Consensus  of  the  Christian  Church. 

V.    THE  THREEFOLD   INFALLIBILITY 

The  Protestant  Churches  should  limit  the  infallibility 
of  Scripture  in  a  similar  way  to  that  by  which  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  has  limited  the  infallibility  of  the  Church, 
and  philosophers  have  limited  the  infallibility  of  the  Reason. 
Protestants  have  committed  a  serious  fault  here,  which  they 
should  hasten  to  overcome.  Then  the  reluctance  to  accept 
the  infallibility  of  the  Bible  by  modern  scholars  and  a  dis- 
satisfied people  will  gradually  disappear. 

The  modern  mind  cannot  accept  any  such  absolute  in- 
fallibility, either  in  the  Bible,  the  Church  or  the  Reason,  as 
the  older  authorities  maintained.  The  limitations  that  we 
have  found  in  the  infallibility  of  the  Reason,  the  Church  and 
the  Bible,  whether  they  are  altogether  correct  or  not,  make 
it  evident  that  we  can  have  only  a  relative  infallibility,  an 
infallibility  so  far  as  the  subject-matter,  the  circumstances  and 
the  persons  make  possible;  but  no  more  than  this.  As  I 
have  said: 

We  cannot  assume  that  when  God  speaks  to  men  He  must  always 
speak  an  inerrant  word.  God  is  true.  He  is  the  truth.  There  is  no 
error  or  falsehood  in  Him.  He  cannot  lie.  He  cannot  mislead  or  de- 
ceive His  creatures.  We  may  be  certain  of  the  inerrancy  of  the  Speaker; 
but  how  can  it  be  shown  that  the  means  of  communication  are  inerrant, 
or  that  man  is  capable  of  receiving  an  inerrant  word  ?  It  is  necessary 
to  consider  that  in  all  His  relations  to  man  and  nature  God  conde- 


244  CHURCH  UNITY 

scends.  The  finite  can  only  comprehend  a  part  of  the  infinite.  God  lim- 
its Himself  when  He  imparts  anything  of  Himself  to  His  creatures.  .  .  . 
Just  as  the  light  is  seen,  not  in  its  pure,  unclouded  rays,  but  in  the  beau- 
tiful colours  of  the  spectrum  as  its  beams  are  broken  up  by  the  angles 
and  discolourations  which  obstruct  its  course,  so  it  is  with  the  truth  of 
God.  Its  revelations  and  communications  meet  with  such  obstacles 
in  human  nature  and  in  this  world  of  ours  that  men  are  capable  of  re- 
ceiving it  only  in  divers  portions  and  divers  manners.  The  only  thing 
we  can  say  is  that  God's  word  to  man  will  be  as  inerrant  as  possible, 
considering  the  human  and  defective  media  through  which  it  is  com- 
municated. {General  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Holy  Scripture,  pp. 
637  /.) 

That  which  was  then  said  of  the  Bible  is  just  as  true  of  the 
Church  and  the  Reason.  They  give  us  not  an  absolute  in- 
fallibility, but  a  relative  infallibility,  altogether  reliable 
and  certain  so  far  as  it  goes,  but  needing  to  be  enlarged, 
verified  and  enhanced  by  other  and  later,  no  less  infallible, 
words  of  God  to  man. 

The  three  fountains  of  divine  authority  are  not  and  can- 
not be  contradictory,  because  they  are  three  different  media 
for  the  same  divine  Being  to  make  His  authority  known  to 
mankind.  We  may  compare  them  with  the  three  great  func- 
tions of  government;  the  legislative,  the  executive  and  the 
judicial,  which  in  the  best  modern  governments  conspire 
to  express  the  authority  of  the  nation.  The  Bible  is  the 
legislative  principle  of  divine  authority,  for  it  is  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  The  Church  is  the  ex- 
ecutive principle  of  divine  authority.  It  makes  no  rules 
save  those  which  are  executive  interpretations  and  applica- 
tions of  the  rules  contained  in  apostolic  teaching.  The 
Reason  is  the  judicial  principle  of  divine  authority  to  the 
individual  man.  The  Reason,  when  it  judges,  must  be  fol- 
lowed at  all  costs.  There  is  liability  to  mistake,  in  individu- 
als and  in  ecclesiastical  bodies,  in  interpreting  the  decisions 
that  come  through  these  three  media.  Two  may  usually  be 
used  for  verification  of  any  one  of  them. 

If  only  this  method  of  determining  differences  were  pur- 
sued, the  greater  part  of  the  practical  difficulties  of  Christian- 


•  ] 


INFALLIBILITY,  TRUE  AND   FALSE  245 


ity  would  disappear.     The  consent  of  the  three  authorities  j 

would    be   overpowering   and    irresistible    in    its    influence.  j 

Christianity,  limiting  itself  to  those  things  thus  confirmed  as  1 

infallible,  would   be  invincible.     All   mankind  would  yield  | 

unquestioning  obedience  to  it,  as  to  the  voice  of  God  Himself.  : 


IX 

THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM 

The  Christian  Church  has  a  Sacramental  System,  insti- 
tuted by  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles.  And  yet  it  is  just 
this  Sacramental  System  about  which  the  Church  is  so 
greatly  divided.  The  consensus  of  Christianity  as  to  the 
Sacraments  is  set  forth  in  the  Chicago-Lambeth  quadri- 
lateral for  the  reunion  of  Christendom:  the  two  Sacra- 
mertts,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  ministered  with  an 
unfailing  use  of  Christ's  words  of  institution  and  of  the  ele- 
ments ordained  by  him.  The  Christian  Church  throughout 
the  world  in  all  its  divisions,  at  present  and  in  the  past,  agrees 
to  these  two  Sacraments,  and  the  two  things  essential  to 
these  Sacraments:  the  words  of  institution  and  the  elements 
of  water,  bread  and  wine.  All  agree  also  that  the  Sacraments 
are  visible  forms  of  an  invisible  grace. 

The  Churches  of  Christ  differ:  (1)  Whether  there  are 
more  sacraments  than  the  two;  (2)  as  to  the  relation  of  the 
sacramental  grace  to  the  persons  of  the  Holy  Trinity;  (3) 
as  to  the  relation  of  the  grace  conferred  to  the  elements 
through  which  it  is  conferred;  and  (4)  as  to  the  effects  of  the 
grace  upon  its  recipients. 

I.    THE  NUMBER  OF  THE  SACRAMENTS 

There  is  a  consensus  in  the  Church  as  regards  the  two  great 
sacraments.  Baptism  and  the  Eucharist;  there  is  dissensus 
as  to  any  others.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  and  the 
Greek  Orthodox  Church  agree  in  recognising  seven  sacra- 

246 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM  247 

merits  or  mysteries:  Baptism,  Confirmation,  Eucharist, 
Penance,  Unction,  Order  and  Matrimony;  and  the  Council 
of  Trent  pronounces  an  anathema  upon  any  one  who  says 
that  these  "were  not  all  instituted  by  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord." 
At  the  same  time  the  Council  declares  that  Baptism  and  the 
Eucharist  are  pre-eminent  above  the  others  and  that  the  sacra- 
ments are  not  all  of  equal  worth. 

Again,  the  Council  asserts  that,  although  all  the  sacra- 
ments are  not,  indeed,  necessary  for  every  individual,  yet 
none  are  "superfluous,"  and  all  are  means  of  grace  and  sal- 
vation. Thus,  Marriage  is  not  necessary  to  all  men  and  is 
forbidden  to  those  in  orders;  and  Order  is  reserved  for  the 
ministers  of  the  Church. 

When  it  is  said  that  all  these  sacraments  were  instituted 
by  Christ,  it  is  not  claimed  that  they  were  all  instituted  by 
words  of  Christ  contained  in  the  Gospels.  Christ's  com- 
mands are  inferred  from  apostolic  institutions.  Thus,  Con- 
firmation is  based  on  the  authority  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  John,^ 
and  Unction  upon  St.  James'  Epistle,^  but  Baptism  and 
the  Eucharist,  Penance,  and  Order  are  based  upon  the  insti- 
tution of  Jesus  Christ  himself,  as  recorded  in  the  Gospels, 
and  Matrimony  upon  the  recognition  by  Christ  of  this 
primitive  institution. 

The  Lutheran  Churches  regard  Confirmation,  Penance, 
Order,  and  Matrimony  as  sacred  institutions  of  the  Christian 
Church,  but  refuse  to  class  them  with  the  Sacraments.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  Church  of  England,  which  revised  the 
ancient  Catholic  forms  and  composed  its  own  services  for 
Confirmation,  Penance,  Order,  and  Matrimony.  The  Re- 
formed Churches  also  recognised  Confirmation,  Penance, 
Order,  and  Matrimony  as  sacred  institutions  for  which 
special  services  were  composed.  None  of  the  Churches  of  the 
Reformation,  however,  used  Unction. 

The  state  of  the  controversy  has  so  changed,  in  modem  con- 
ditions and  circumstances,  that  we  may  raise  the  question 
whether  the  dissensus  as  to  the  number  of  the  Sacraments 
'  Acts  viii.  *  V.  14-15. 


248  CHURCH  UNITY 

is  any  longer  of  much  importance.     As  Dr.  Paget,  Bishop  of 
Oxford,  said  some  years  ago: 

The  dispute  as  to  the  number  of  the  sacraments  is  indeed  "a  ques- 
tion of  a  name"  (Gore,  Roman  Catholic  Claims,  p.  170);  and  it  ought 
to  have  been  acknowledged  all  along  that  the  name  was  being  used 
with  different  and  shifting  meanings.  That  men  knew  that  it  did  not 
designate  an  essentially  distinct  class  of  exactly  equivalent  units  is 
shown  on  all  sides:  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  seems  to  doubt,  at  least, 
whether  there  are  not  more  than  seven  Sacraments,  divides  the  seven 
into  groups  with  very  important  notes  of  difference,  and  decides  that 
the  Eucharist  is  Sacramentorum  omnium  potissimum  (III,  Qu.  LXV. 
Art.  1,  4,  3);  Calvin  was  not  unwilling  that  the  laying  on  of  hands 
should  be  called  a  sacrament,  though  he  would  not  reckon  it  *' inter 
ordinaria  Sacramenta"  (Inst.  IV.,  XIV.  20);  the  Council  of  Trent  has 
an  anathema  for  any  one  who  says  that  the  seven  Sacraments  are  so 
equal  that  none  is  more  worthy  than  another  (Sess.  VII.  Can.  Ill); 
Richard  Baxter  distinguishes  between  "three  sorts  of  Sacraments"; 
in  the  second  sense  of  the  name,  in  which  it  is  taken  to  mean  "any 
solemn  investiture  of  a  person  by  ministerial  delivery,  in  a  state  of 
Church  privileges,  or  some  special  Gospel  mercy";  he  grants  "  that  there 
are  five  Sacraments — Baptism,  Confirmation,  Absolution,  the  Lord's 
Supper  and  Ordination";  and  elsewhere  he  declares  that  "they  that 
peremptorily  say  without  distinguishing  that  there  are  but  two  Sacra- 
ments in  all,  do  but  harden  them  (the  Papists)  by  the  unwarrantable 
narrowing  of  the  word"  {Confirmation,  pp.  88,  89;  Ecclesiastical  Cases 
of  Conscience,  Qu.  99).     {Lux  Mundi,  pp.  42-45.) 

The  term  Sacrament  is  not  a  Biblical  term.  It  was  not 
much  used  in  the  primitive  Church,  and  not  at  all  in  the  Greek 
and  Oriental  Churches,  for  the  seven  Sacraments  of  the  West- 
em  Church.  The  term  Sacrament  is  a  Western  term.  In 
the  scholastic  terminology  it  became  stereotyped  with  the 
distinction  of  the  two  parts,  form  and  matter.  It  was  only 
gradually,  and  not  till  late  in  the  Middle  Ages,  that  the  num- 
ber of  the  Sacraments  became  fixed  as  seven.  The  Greek 
Church  went  through  the  same  development  in  its  use  of 
the  older  term,  Mystery,  which  eventually  embraced  the 
same  seven  sacred  institutions  as  those  of  the  Roman  Church. 

The  Reformers  rejected  five  of  these  from  the  class  of 
Sacraments,  because  of  the  exaggeration  of  them  in  cere- 
monies, and  the  many  abuses  and  superstitions  connected 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM  249 

with  them.  The  most  of  these  were,  however,  done  away 
with  by  the  Council  of  Trent  and  the  Counter-Reformation 
of  the  Roman  CathoHc  Church.  What  the  Reformation 
really  stands  for,  is  not  the  denial  that  Confirmation,  Penance, 
Unction,  Order,  and  Matrimony  are  sacred  apostolic  insti- 
tutions; but  that  they  are  not  to  be  exalted  into  the  same 
class  as  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  But,  really,  the 
Council  of  Trent  maintained  the  same  thing.  When  the  fathers 
of  Trent  assert  that  there  are  seven  Sacraments,  they,  at  the 
same  time,  pronounce  an  anathema  upon  the  one  who  says  that 
any  one  is  not  more  worthy  than  another;  so  that  really  they 
class  the  two  Sacraments  by  themselves  as  distinguished  from 
the  other  five,  though  both  groups  are  in  the  same  general 
class;  just  as  St.  Paul  is  classed  with  the  Twelve  and  others 
as  apostles,  while  it  is  recognised  that  the  Twelve  really 
constituted  a  body  by  themselves;  and  that  St.  Peter  was 
the  primate  of  the  apostles  in  jurisdiction  as  well  as  in 
honour. 

Inasmuch  as  Greeks  and  Romans  agree  in  the  seven  Sacra- 
ments, the  Protestant  Churches  should  abandon  their  oppo- 
sition; only  insisting  that  the  two  Sacraments,  Baptism  and 
the  Eucharist,  stand  by  themselves  as  Sacraments  of  Sacra- 
ments, and  that  the  other  five  are  named  Sacraments  in  a 
secondary  sense,  as  sacred  institutions  of  the  Christian 
Church  established  by  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  finds  in  all  these  seven  Sacra- 
ments visible  forms  of  invisible  grace,  and  also  makes  in 
them  all  the  Scholastic  distinction  between  form  and  matter. 
The  question  as  to  form  and  matter  has  some  importance  in 
Dogmatic  Theology,  but  is  of  no  great  importance  for  the 
question  in  hand.  As  to  most  of  these  sacred  institutions, 
there  is  general  agreement  as  to  form  and  matter;  but  there 
is  no  consensus  as  to  all  of  them  in  this  regard,  so  that  we 
may  regard  this  question  as  still  a  debatable  one,  not  finally 
decided  by  the  Church.  We  may,  therefore,  give  our  at- 
tention to  the  essential  question,  whether  these  five  sacred 
institutions  are  visible  forms  of  invisible  grace. 


250  CHURCH  UNITY 


The  Five  Minor  Sacraments 

The  Churches  of  the  Reformation  practically  recognised 
all  of  the  five  minor  sacraments  as  means  of  grace,  except 
Unction.    This,  therefore,  we  shall  consider  first. 

(1)  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Unction  was  a  visible 
form  of  invisible  grace  to  the  sick,  when  the  elders  followed 
the  advice  of  the  Epistle  of  James  in  apostolic  times.  There 
should  be  no  doubt  that  the  Christian  Church  has  in  all 
ages  used  Unction  as  a  means  of  grace.  It  was  discredited 
at  the  Reformation  and  since  then  in  Protestant  Churches.  It 
is  one  of  the  revenges  of  History,  that  it  is  now  being  forced 
back  into  the  Protestant  Churches  by  the  number  of  sects 
which  practise  Faith  Cure,  Christian  Science  and  the  other 
like  methods  of  religious  cure.  It  would  be  well,  therefore,  if 
the  Churches  should  at  once  restore  the  sacred  and  apostolic 
institution  of  Unction,  and  train  their  ministry  in  Pastoral 
medicine  as  Roman  Catholics  do.  The  Roman  Catho- 
lics employ  Unction  chiefly  in  the  form  of  "Extreme  Unc- 
tion" in  the  dying  hour;  but  the  Greeks  adhere  to  the  more 
ancient  mode  of  using  it  for  the  healing  of  the  sick.  The 
Council  of  Trent  is  more  correct  in  this  regard  than  Roman 
Catholic  practice.  The  Churches  of  the  Reformation  should 
not  object  to  this  admirable  statement  of  the  Council  of 
Trent: 

Moreover,  the  thing  signified,  and  the  effect  of  this  Sacrament,  are 
explained  in  these  words:  And  the  prayer  of  faith  shall  save  the  sick 
man,  and  the  Lord  shall  raise  him  up,  and  if  he  be  in  sins,  they  shall  he 
forgiven  him.  For  the  thing  here  signified  is  the  grace  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  whose  anointing  cleanses  away  sins,  if  there  be  any  still  to  be 
expiated,  as  also  the  remains  of  sins;  and  raises  up,  and  strengthens 
the  soul  of  the  sick  person  by  exciting  in  him  a  great  confidence  in  the 
divine  mercy;  whereby  the  sick  being  supported,  bears  more  easily  the 
inconveniences  and  pains  of  his  sickness,  and  the  more  readily  resists 
the  temptations  of  the  devil  who  lies  in  wait  for  hvt  heel  (Gen.  iii.  15); 
and  at  times  obtains  bodily  health,  when  expedient  for  the  welfare  of 
the  soul.     (Sess.  xiv.  2.) 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM  251 

(2)  The  Sacrament  of  Penance  was  greatly  abused  in 
the  Mediaeval  Church,  and  especially  in  the  century  preced- 
ing the  great  Reformation.  This  abuse  was,  indeed,  the  great 
exciting  occasion  of  the  Reformation.  But  abuse  does  not 
justify  disuse,  although  it  often  has  this  result.  The  three 
parts  of  Penance,  which  constitute  its  matter,  are  contrition, 
confession  and  satisfaction.  Absolution  is  its  form.  The 
Protestant  Churches  use  the  term  Repentance  instead  of 
Penance.  We  should  not,  however,  waste  our  strength  in 
quarrelling  about  terms,  especially  when  they  are  different 
translations  of  the  same  Biblical  original  and  are  explained 
in  essentially  the  same  way  by  both  parties.  The  questions 
in  controversy  are:  (a)  whether  the  penance  shall  be  public 
or  private;  (6)  whether  it  shall  be  general  or  particular; 
(c)  whether  satisfaction  shall  be  given  to  the  one  personally 
wronged,  or  whether  the  Church  claims  should  also  be  satis- 
fied; (d)  whether  the  absolution  shall  be  public  or  private. 

(a)  All  agree  that  Contrition  is  essential  to  penance. 
Indeed,  the  Protestants  make  more  of  this  than  the  Roman 
Catholics,  many  of  whom  weaken  contrition  into  what  is 
known  as  attritiony  which  is,  as  the  Council  of  Trent  says,  an 
"imperfect  contrition,"  that  thinks  of  the  punishment  of  sin 
rather  than  the  guilt  of  it. 

(b)  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  makes  private  auricular 
confession  of  mortal  sins  necessary  to  salvation  as  "a  labori- 
ous kind  of  baptism."  The  Protestant  Churches  permit, 
and  in  some  cases  advise,  private  confession;  but  for  the 
most  part  require  public  confession  as  an  essential  part  of 
public  worship,  and  usually  its  initial  part  either  before  or 
immediately  after  the  invocation  of  the  divine  presence. 
Protestants  thus  make  much  more  of  public  confession 
before  the  whole  Church;  Roman  Catholics  of  private  con- 
fession before  the  priest,  the  representative  of  the  Church. 
It  should  be  said,  however,  that  while  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  recommends  frequent  auricular  confession  of  all 
sin,  it  requires  only  the  confession  of  mortal  sins,  and  of  these 
but  once  a  year.     Protestant  Churches,  however,  require  the 


252  CHUKCH  UNITY 

confession  of  mortal  sins  publicly  before  the  whole  congrega- 
tion, according  to  the  most  ancient  usage,  that  is,  when  these 
sins  have  become  public  and  scandalous.  The  Roman 
Catholic  Church  requires  the  confession  of  all  mortal  sins, 
whether  public  or  private,  whether  scandalous  or  not. 

It  is  a  common  fault  of  the  Churches  that  they  multiply 
offences  and  aggravate  mortal  sins,  far  beyond  any  warrant  in 
Holy  Scripture  or  Christian  experience.  This  overdoing 
destroys  the  sense  of  proportion  in  sin,  and  results  inevitably 
in  hardening  the  greater  sinners  and  making  the  lesser  ones 
morbid  and  self-torturing.  There  is  room  here  for  a  better 
understanding  of  Christian  morals,  and  a  better  adjustment 
of  pastoral  medicine,  and  a  far  better  theory  and  practice  of 
confession  of  sin,  whjch  should  lead  to  a  Christian  consensus 
that  would  be  of  enormous  benefit  to  all  Churches. 

The  Roman  Catholic  priests  urge  the  people  to  confession, 
far  beyond  any  warrant  in  the  principles  of  the  Church ;  and 
Protestant  ministers  often  press  upon  the  people  their  own 
personal  theories  as  to  sins,  which  have  no  justification  in  the 
teachings  of  Holy  Scripture  or  in  the  ethical  doctrines  of 
Protestantism.  The  inevitable  consequence  is  great  con- 
fusion in  the  minds  of  the  people  as  to  what  is  sin  and  what 
is  not  sin;  and  minor  offences,  and  sometimes  no  real  sins 
at  all,  loom  up  before  them  as  great  transgressions,  while 
at  the  same  time  real  and  serious  sins  are  overlooked. 

(c)  As  regards  satisfaction,  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
is  correct  in  principle;  although  in  practice,  its  taxing  of  sins 
and  its  indulgences  are  productive,  now  even  in  their  re- 
formed uses,  of  great  and  inevitable  evils.  It  is  certainly 
true  that  the  sinner  commits  an  offence  against  the  Church 
for  which  some  satisfaction  should  be  rendered.  The  Civil 
Law  does  not  exempt  a  criminal  from  punishment  when  he 
satisfies  his  adversary  by  some  form  of  compensation.  The 
Civil  Law  forbids  the  injured  party  to  compound  a  felony. 
By  so  doing  he  is  acting  against  the  interests  of  the  com- 
munity and  obstructing  the  course  of  justice.  So  the  Church 
as  a  government,  with  laws  and  jurisdiction,  has  the  right 


THE  SACRAMENTAL   SYSTEM  253 

and,  it  may  be  said,  the  duty  of  exacting  a  penalty  from  those 
who  sin  against  its  laws.  The  Church  of  Rome  carefully 
distinguishes  between  the  temporal  and  eternal  penalty; 
between  that  which  the  Church  inflicts  and  that  which  Grod 
Himself  threatens  against  the  sinner. 

The  satisfaction  made  by  Jesus  Christ  atones  for  all  sin 
against  God,  and  the  penalty  for  that  sin  is  remitted  with  for- 
giveness. Baptism  and  Penance  are  visible  forms  of  this 
invisible  grace.  The  Church  is  an  institution  of  grace,  and 
the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  its  great  watchword.  But  the  Church 
has  the  duty  of  impressing  upon  the  sinner  the  penalty  due 
the  Church  for  the  violation  of  his  duties  to  the  Church, 
even  if  it  may  remit  them  in  whole  or  in  part  in  its  wise 
discretion. 

In  fact,  all  Protestant  Churches  recognise  this  principle, 
when  they  try  before  the  church  courts  such  members  as 
are  guilty  of  scandalous  offences,  heresies  and  schisms; 
and  they  do  not  hesitate  to  inflict  penalties  of  reproof,  sus- 
pension and  excommunication  upon  such  offenders.  And 
they  reserve  the  right  of  remitting  the  penalty  when  it  seems 
best  to  them.  Indeed,  the  Protestant  Churches  are  more  in- 
clined to  inflict  severe  penalties  and  less  inclined  to  re- 
mission of  penalties  than  the  Roman  Catholic. 

Thus  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  say: 

That  person  which  by  open  denunciation  of  the  Church  is  rightly 
cut  ofT  from  the  unity  of  the  Church,  and  excommunicated,  ought  to 
be  taken  of  the  whole  multitude  of  the  faithful,  as  an  Heathen  and  Pub- 
lican, until  he  be  openly  reconciled  by  penance,  and  received  into  the 
Church  by  a  Judge  that  hath  authority  thereunto.    (Article  XXXIII.) 

It  is  just  because  there  is  no  recognition  of  the  rights  of  the 
Church  to  satisfaction  in  lesser  offences,  that  the  Protestant 
Churches  have  not  learned  to  exercise  the  function  of  their 
remission;  and  dealing  only  with  grosser  offences  they  im- 
pose severer  penalties  from  which  they  hesitate  to  retire. 

(d)  Absolution  is  given  in  the  Lutheran  and  Anglican 
Churches  by  the  priest  in  public  after  confession;    in  the 


254  CHURCH  UNITY 

Roman  Catholic  Church,  in  private  by  the  priest.  In  the 
Reformed  Churches,  the  minister  voices  the  repentance  of 
the  people,  and  absolution  is  precatory,  and  usually  not 
merely  a  supplication  for  pardon,  but  also  thanksgiving  for 
the  pardon  received  and  enjoyed.  It  should  be  said  that  the 
public  penance  of  the  Protestant  Churches,  especially  when 
attached  to  both  morning  and  evening  prayers,  affords  the 
people  more  frequent  opportunities  for  ridding  themselves 
of  sin  than  the  Roman  Catholic  method.  It  might  be  said 
that  the  Protestant  method  makes  it  too  easy. 

It  should  be  recognised  that  absolution,  as  well  as  con- 
fession and  all  parts  of  penance,  may  take  place  in  private 
as  well  as  in  public;  and  it  should  be  left  to  the  good  judg- 
ment of  the  priest,  and  usually  to  the  voluntary  preference  of 
the  penitent,  which  method  should  be  followed.  I  see  no 
sufficient  reason  why  a  consensus  should  not  be  attained 
by  men  of  goodwill,  at  least  as  to  the  essentials  of  the  Sacra- 
ment of  Penance,  and  then  the  details  might  be  left  to  the 
different  usages  of  the  different  Churches. 
'  (3)  Confirmation  is  not  reckoned  as  a  Sacrament  by  the 
Churches  of  the  Reformation,  but  it  is  practised  as  an  apos- 
tolic institution  by  the  most  of  them.  The  Presbyterian 
Churches  of  Scotland,  and  the  Non-conformists  of  England, 
Ireland  and  Wales,  abolished  confirmation  because  of  the 
superstitions  and  formalities,  which,  they  claimed,  were  con- 
nected with  it;  but  they  all  of  them  adopted  in  its  place 
methods  of  admission  to  the  Holy  Communion,  sometimes 
public,  sometimes  private.  But  the  private  methods  have 
for  the  most  part  disappeared,  at  least  in  America,  and  public 
ceremonies  of  various  kinds  have  been  reintroduced.  Con- 
firmation was  originally  closely  connected  with  Baptism. 
The  laying  on  of  hands  is  not  essential  to  its  validity.  In  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  it  is  by  anointing  with  the  sacred 
chrism.  The  Greeks  still  closely  connect  Confirmation 
with  Baptism,  and  also  use  the  sacred  oil.  The  Presbyterians 
and  Non-conformists  receive  candidates,  whether  in  public 
or  private,  with  appropriate  prayers,  and  usually  the  minister 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM  255 

gives  them  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  and  sometimes  other 
church  officers  do  this  also. 

Whatever  the  ceremony  may  be,  all  recognise  that  it  is  a 
means  of  grace.  It  puts  the  seal  upon  Baptism,  which  it 
ratifies  and  confirms,  and  brings  to  its  completion,  in  ad- 
mitting the  baptised  for  the  first  time  to  the  Lord's  Table. 
Why  should  we  not  agree  upon  the  ceremony  ?  Why  should 
we  not  follow  the  usage  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  Churches, 
supported  by  centuries  of  Christian  tradition,  rather  than 
modem  ceremonies,  or  even  the  revival  of  the  most  primitive 
usage  of  the  laying  on  of  hands?  Confirmation,  whatever 
the  ceremony,  is  a  visible  sign,  and  it  does  in  all  the  ceremonies 
bestow  invisible  grace. 

(4)  The  Roman  Catholic  and  Greek  Churches  hold  that 
Order  is  a  Sacrament,  that  ordination  to  the  ministry  is  a 
visible  sign  of  an  invisible  grace.  Does  any  Church  deny 
that?  Do  not  all  the  Protestant  Churches  claim  that  their 
ministry  is  based  on  our  Lord's  commission  to  the  apostles 
perpetuated  through  all  the  ages  by  the  ceremony  of  ordina- 
tion? They  differ  as  to  the  form  of  government  in  the 
Church,  as  to  the  Pope,  as  to  Patriarchs,  as  to  Bishops, 
as  to  the  functions  of  Presbyters  and  Deacons;  but  all  agree 
as  to  the  reality  of  the  grace  of  ordination.  Why,  then, 
should  not  this  sacred  institution  be  regarded  by  all  as  a 
Sacrament,  not  of  the  same  worth  as  Baptism  and  the  Eu- 
charist, but  nevertheless  a  sacred  institution,  a  real  mystery 
of  grace?  If  the  Eucharist  is  a  sacrifice  in  any  sense,  the 
ministry  which  celebrates  the  Eucharist  must  be  a  priest- 
hood in  that  same  sense;  and  the  ordination  of  such  a  min- 
istry is  sacramental  in  character,  whatever  may  be  said  of 
other  orders  of  the  ministry  than  priesthood. 

(5)  Marriage  was  the  last  of  the  Sacraments  to  gain  recog- 
nition; and  rightly  so,  for,  though  a  divine  institution,  it  is 
more  closely  connected  with  civil  government  than  with 
religion.  Nevertheless,  the  Christian  Church  has  always 
recognised  the  religious  element  in  marriage,  and  it  has  al- 
ways appealed  to  the  teachings  of  Jesus  Christ  himself  as 


256  CHURCH  UNITY 

the  supreme  authority  in  marriage.  The  Churches  of  the 
Reformation,  no  less  than  the  Roman  and  Greek  Churches, 
celebrate  marriages  for  their  adherents,  and  are  not  content 
with  marriages  constituted  by  civil  authorities.  Marriage 
is  not  only  a  divine  institution,  but  also  an  institution  which 
Jesus  Christ  himself  made  additionally  sacred.  The  ques- 
tion that  concerns  us  here,  is  whether  marriage  is  a  visible 
sign  of  invisible  grace. 

There  are  many  difficult  subsidiary  questions  with  which 
the  chief  question  seems  to  be  inextricably  involved.  It  is 
evident  that  the  value  of  marriage  does  not  depend  upon  the 
use  of  any  particular  ceremony.  Any  ceremony,  whether 
simple  or  complex,  appointed  by  authority  of  Church  or 
State,  constitutes  a  valid  marriage.  A  purely  civil  marriage 
must  be  recognised  as  a  valid  marriage,  however  defective 
it  may  be  on  its  religious  side.  Cohabitation  is,  however, 
necessary  to  make  it  really  effective,  and  that  is  usually  re- 
garded as  the  matter  of  marriage.  Any  form  of  words  that 
makes  the  marriage  valid  by  law  may  be  regarded  as  the 
form  of  marriage,  for  these  words  are  the  effective  words. 
The  words  of  institution  may  be  pronounced  by  a  civil  or 
ecclesiastical  authority,  or  by  the  parties  to  the  marriage 
themselves.  This  is  a  sacred  institution  which  does  not  de- 
pend for  its  validity  upon  any  particular  words  uttered  by 
Christ  or  his  aposdes,  but  upon  a  contract  between  the  parties, 
ratified  by  Church  or  State. 

It  is  an  unfortunate  situation  in  the  United  States,  that  the 
Christian  minister  acts  in  the  marriage  ceremony  in  a  double 
capacity,  both  as  an  officer  of  the  civil  government  and  as 
a  minister  of  the  Church,  responsible  to  two  independent  and 
in  some  respects  conflicting  jurisdictions,  so  that  sometimes 
he  is  troubled  in  conscience  as  to  his  duty  under  the  circum- 
stances. It  would  be  a  happy  solution  of  many  difficulties, 
if  the  State  always  made  the  civil  marriage  by  civil  officials,  as 
in  Switzerland.  Then  Christians  might  have  the  marriage 
ratified  by  the  Church  in  a  religious  ceremony.  The  situ- 
ation would  then  be  similar  to  that  of  clinical  baptism: 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM  257 

valid  indeed,  but  irregular,  and  only  to  be  justified  by  necessity 
and  needing  supplementary  religious  ratification  by  the 
ministry  of  the  Church.  So,  lay  marriage  is  a  valid  marriage 
but  irregular,  and  needing  the  religious  ceremony  to  give  it 
full  sacramental  value  as  a  real  means  of  grace  and  salvation. 
It  is  of  immense  consequence  to  Christianity  that  the  Chris- 
tian Churches  should  come  to  an  agreement  on  this  important 
subject,  and  then  establish  an  understanding  with  the  civil 
governments  as  to  the  laws  respecting  marriage.  This  may 
be  accomplished  by  insisting  only  upon  essentials,  and  re- 
serving theories  and  subordinate  matters  for  determination 
by  particular  jurisdictions. 

I  have  gone  over  the  five  Sacraments  which  the  Greek 
and  Roman  Churches  add  to  the  two  recognised  by  the 
Protestant  Churches.  I  have  shown  that  they  all  have  the 
essential  features  of  Sacraments,  visible  signs  of  invisible 
grace.  They  all  have  the  scholastic  parts  of  form  and 
matter;  although  the  five  are  not  of  the  same  high  value 
as  Baptism  and  the  Eucharist,  as  Greeks  and  Romans 
agree. 

The  Mediaeval  Church  recognised,  beyond  the  range  of  the 
seven  Sacraments,  other  sacred  things,  such  as  the  crown- 
ing of  a  king  or  the  consecration  of  church  buildings,  as 
Sacramentaliay  also  having  form  and  matter.  Some  Protes- 
tants have  thought  that  we  might  classify  the  five  lesser 
Sacraments  with  these  Sdcramentalia  rather  than  with  the 
two  great  Sacraments;  but  reflection  shows  that  this  would 
be  a  mistake;  because  the  five  lesser  Sacraments  are  in  their 
nature  more  in  accord  with  the  two  greater  ones  than  they 
are  with  these  Sacramentalia.  The  consecration  of  a  church 
building  is  the  consecration  of  a  material  thing  and  not  of  a 
person.  How  can  it  be  a  means  of  grace  to  persons  as  are 
the  five  lesser  Sacraments  ?  The  consecration  of  a  king  is 
to  oflBciate  in  civil  not  in  religious  functions.  We  can  hardly 
think  of  the  impartation  of  saving  grace  in  this  instance. 
The  Sacraments  are  not  for  the  impartation  of  the  divine 
favour  and  blessing;  they  are  means  of  grace  and  salvation. 


258  CHURCH  UNITY 

The  Protestant  Churches  should  abandon  their  opposition 
to  the  recognition  of  the  five  lesser  Sacraments  as  Sacraments, 
and  limit  themselves  to  the  insistence  that  all  superstitions, 
extravagances  and  abuses  should  be  removed  from  them  in 
the  Reform  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church;  and  that  the 
five  lesser  Sacraments  should  be  carefully  discriminated 
from  the  two  greater  ones,  Baptism  and  the  Eucharist. 

II.    THE  RELATION  OF  THE  DIVINE  GRACE  IN  THE  SACRA- 
MENTS TO  THE  PERSONS  OF  THE  HOLY  TRINITY 

The  divine  grace  conferred  in  the  sacramental  system 
comes  from  Grod  Himself.  What,  then,  is  the  relation  which 
Grod,  maintains  to  that  grace  ? 

1.  Sacramental  Grace 

God  the  Father  is  the  fountain  of  all  grace,  of  all  love 
and  of  all  salvation.  The  grace  is  His  grace  and  the  salvation 
is  His  salvation.  Therefore,  that  grace  bears  within  itself 
divine  characteristics.  These  may  be  summed  up  in  these 
three  adjectives:  sufficient,  efficient  and  irresistible,  (a)  The 
divine  grace  in  the  Sacraments  is  sufficient.  It  is  amply  suflS- 
cient  to  accomplish  its  purpose  of  salvation.  The  grace  is 
really  there  in  the  Sacrament — it  is  there  abundantly — it  is 
there  preveniently — not  waiting  for  human  action,  but  pre- 
ceding, anticipating  all  human  wants,  and  superabundant 
above  all  human  needs.    To  this  all  Churches  agree. 

(b)  The  divine  grace  in  the  Sacrament  is  efficient;  it 
really  accomplishes  the  divine  purpose  of  grace.  Those  who 
use  the  Sacraments  should  have  no  doubt  or  fear  lest  the 
Sacraments  fail  in  their  effects;  but  should  have  faith,  con- 
fidence, assurance  and  certainty  that  what  God  has  promised 
He  will  most  surely  perform,  and  that  the  right  use  of  the 
Sacraments  will  always  be  effectual  to  themselves  and  to 
others.  There  will  be  degrees  of  efficiency,  depending  upon 
circumstances  and  environment;    but  these  degrees  do  not 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM  269 

depend  upon  the  divine  provision,  which  is  superabundant; 
or  upon  the  priesdy  administrator,  who  merely  fulfils  the 
functions  and  carries  out  the  intention  of  the  Church,  whose 
servant  he  is;  but  solely  and  alone  upon  the  capacity  of  the 
believer  to  receive  the  grace  provided.  The  divine  grace 
will  fill  his  little  vessel  full  to  overflowing  all  the  time,  good 
measure,  pressed  down  and  running  over  its  utmost  ca- 
pacity. All  the  Christian  Churches  agree  in  this  doctrine, 
however  little  it  may  be  realised  in  practice. 

(c)  The  divine  grace  is  irresistible.  At  this  point  the  differ- 
ences in  Christianity  appear.  It  is  not  meant  in  Church 
doctrine  that  it  is  so  irresistible  as  to  take  away  the  freedom 
of  the  human  will,  on  the  part  of  those  who  use  the  Sacrament. 
The  divine  grace  is  irresistible  when  bestowed,  not  when 
withheld;  when  the  divine  energy  is  put  forth,  not  when  it 
is  restrained.  It  is  fully  recognised  that  there  are  invincible 
obstacles  in  some  human  natures,  which  God  might  overcome 
by  His  omnipotent  power,  if  He  would;  but  which  He  will  not 
overpower  at  the  cost  of  human  impotence,  and  which  it  is 
doubtful  if  He  could  overcome  without  the  destruction  of 
moral  natures.  In  all  the  operations  of  the  divine  grace, 
there  are  preparatory  grace  and  consequent  grace,  all  of 
which  is  resistible.  The  irresistibility  of  the  divine  grace 
is  at  the  supreme  moment  when  man  no  longer  resists  but 
is  passive  to  the  putting  forth  of  the  divine  power,  and 
simply  receives  what  God  bestows.  The  divine  power  of 
grace  is  moral  and  not  physical,  except  so  far  as  the  physical 
may  be  an  instrument  of  moral  influence,  and  not  as  in  itself 
producing  moral  results. 

This  doctrine  of  irresistible  divine  grace  in  the  Sacraments 
originated  the  subsidiary  theory  of  the  opus  operatum; 
that  is,  that  the  Sacraments  are  irresistible  in  their  very  use. 
This  is  thus  stated  by  the  Council  of  Trent : 

If  any  one  saith  that  by  the  said  Sacraments  of  the  New  Law  grace 
is  not  conferred  through  the  act  performed  {ex  opere  operato),  but  that 
faith  alone  in  the  divine  promise  suffices  for  the  obtaining  of  grace, 
let  him  be  anathema.     (Can.  ix.) 


260  CHURCH  UNITY 

This  was  designed  as  a  condemnation  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  which  says: 

Therefore  they  condemn  those  that  teach  that  the  Sacraments  do 
justify  by  the  work  done  {ex  opere  operato),  and  do  not  teach  that  ^faith, 
which  beheves  the  remission  of  sins,  is  requisite  in  the  use  of  Sacra- 
ments.    (Art.   iii.) 

There  seems  to  be  an  irreconcilable  contradiction  between 
these  two  formulas,  and  yet  it  is  not  altogether  so;  for  the 
Council  of  Trent  does  not  teach  that  faith  is  not  requisite 
in  the  use  of  Sacraments;  and  the  Augsburg  Confession  does 
not  state  that  faith  in  the  divine  promises  alone  suffices  for 
the  obtaining  of  grace.  Both  parties  misunderstand  and 
mistake  the  position  of  the  other;  misled,  doubtless,  by  ex- 
travagant statements  made  by  controversialists  on  both  sides. 
The  Council  of  Trent  rather  says  that 

Faith  is  the  beginning  of  human  salvation,  the  foundation  and  the 
root  of  all  Justification,  without  which  it  is  impossible  to  please  God, 
and  to  come  into  the  fellowship  of  His  Son.  (Can.  viii.)  .  .  .  The 
Sacrament  of  Baptism,  which  is  the  Sacrament  of  faith  (without  which 
faith  no  man  was  ever  justified).     (Can.  vii.) 

And  the  Council  recognises  that  there  may  be  invincible 
obstacles  to  the  reception  of  the  divine  grace  on  the  part  of 
those  who  use  the  Sacraments. 

On  the  other  side  the  Augsburg  Confession  asserts  that 
"Baptism  is  necessary  to  salvation,  and  that  by  Baptism 
the  grace  of  God  is  offered"  (Art.  ix);  and  that  in  the  Supper 
of  the  Lord  "the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  truly  present, 
and  are  communicated  to  those  that  eat  in  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per" (Art.  x);  and  that  we  must  use  the  Sacrament  so  as  to 
join  faith  with  them,  that  believes  the  promises  that  are  offered 
and  declared  unto  us  by  the  Sacraments  (Art.  xiii).  The 
real  difference  here  is  one  of  emphasis  and  of  different 
definitions  of  faith  and  justification. 

The  difference  comes  to  a  head  in  the  term  ex  opere  operato^ 
but  even  here  the  difference  is  misstated.  The  Augsburg 
Confession  does  not  say  that  the  divine  grace  is  not  conferred 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM  261 

ex  opere  operatOy  but  it  denies  that  the  Sacraments  do  jitstijy 
ex  opere  operato.  The  Council  of  Trent  does  not  assert  that 
the  Sacraments  justify  ex  opere  operato,  but  that  they  confer 
grace,  ex  opere  operato.  The  Council  of  Trent  and  the 
Augsburg  Confession  agree  that  there  can  be  no  justifica- 
tion without  faith;  they  agree  that  the  Sacraments  contain 
grace  and  confer  grace  where  faith  exists,  and  where  there  is 
not  the  invincible  obstacle  of  unbelief.  The  Roman  Churches 
are  concerned  as  to  the  preveniency  and  actual  working  of  the 
divine  grace;  the  Protestants,  as  to  the  necessity  of  a  living 
and  appropriating  faith.  I  see  no  sufficient  reason  why 
concord  might  not  be  reached  by  better  definitions. 

2.    The  Sacramental  Work  of  the  Holy  Spirit 

God  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  most  direct  agent  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  grace  of  Grod  in  the  Sacraments,  as  in  the 
other  means  of  grace.  He  is  the  surrogate  of  the  Father 
and  also  of  the  Son.  His  temporal  mission  is  by  His  presence 
in  the  Church  and  agency  in  all  her  institutions.  He  makes 
the  divine  grace  effectual  unto  salvation.  His  agency  in 
all  the  Sacraments  is  universally  recognised,  only  not  by  all 
to  the  same  extent,  and  not  by  any  to  the  extent  that  it  should 
be.  It  is  the  merit  of  the  Greek  Church,  that  it  retains  in 
the  Canon  of  the  Mass  the  invocation  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
immediately  after  the  recitation  of  the  words  of  institution, 
and  before  the  fraction.  The  Roman  Mass  has,  instead  of 
the  invocation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  prayer  that  God  may 

Command  these  elements  to  be  brought  up  by  the  hands  of  Thy 
Holy  Angel  to  Thy  Altar  on  High,  before  the  sight  of  Thy  divine  Majesty, 
that  as  many  of  us  as  by  partaking  of  the  altar  shall  have  received  the 
most  sacred  body  and  blood  of  Thy  Son  may  be  fulfilled  with  all  heavenly 
benediction  and  grace. 

The  English  Mass  of  1549  retained  the  ministry  of  the 
Holy  Angel,  but  substituted  for  the  elements  which  he  was 
to  take  up  to  the  divine  altar  the  prayers  and  supplications 
of  the  people.    It  also  inserted  the  invocation  of  God  to  bless 


262  CHURCH  UNITY 

and  sanctify  the  elements  **with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  word." 
Both  of  these  invocations  were  removed  from  the  later  Eng- 
lish Order  for  the  Holy  Communion,  and  so  connection  was 
lost  with  both  the  Greek  and  Roman  Canons.  The  Ameri- 
can Prayer  Book  followed  the  Scottish  Prayer  Book  and  the 
Mass  of  1549,  by  the  reinsertion  of  the  invocation  of  the  word 
and  Spirit,  but  changed  the  order  of  these  two  so  as  to  subor- 
dinate the  work  of  the  Divine  Spirit  to  the  word  of  institution. 

The  work  of  the  Divine  Spirit  in  the  Sacraments  should  be 
emphasised,  and  that  is  the  path  to  Christian  concord.  It  is 
just  here  that  the  Reformed  Churches  have  great  merit;  for 
they  insist  that  the  efficacy  of  the  means  of  grace  is  due  to  the 
working  of  the  Divine  Spirit  rather  than  to  anything  intrinsic 
in  the  means  themselves.  It  is  here  that  they  object  to  the 
Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  ex  opere  operato  as  too  mechanical 
and  magical,  and  urge  that  it  is  the  personal  presence  and 
direct  agency  of  the  divine  Spirit  that  energises  and  vitalises 
these  means  of  grace,  and  gives  them  a  personal  efficacy  to 
human  persons.  It  cannot  be  said  that  Roman  Catholics  or 
Greeks  deny  this.  But  it  must  be  said  that  the  Reformed 
Churches  deserve  the  credit  of  exalting  the  work  of  the  divine 
Spirit,  by  insisting  upon  his  liberty  of  action;  even  though 
they  may  have  gone  too  far  in  claiming  for  the  divine  Spirit 
so  great  a  degree  of  independence  of  the  means  of  grace 
as  that  these  may  be  faithfully  used  without  being  effectual; 
because  the  Holy  Spirit  may  have  been  absent  from  them, 
when  they  have  been  received  by  persons  who  are  not  num- 
bered among  the  elect  of  God.  When  a  Reformed  divine 
writes  of  the  **  Baptismal  regeneration  of  elect  infants,"  he 
denies  regeneration  to  non-elect  infants  even  if  they  have  been 
rightfully  baptised.  In  his  zeal  for  the  doctrine  of  election, 
and  the  divine  sovereignty,  and  the  freedom  of  action  of  the 
divine  Spirit,  he  makes  the  right  use  of  baptism  altogether 
uncertain  in  its  bestowal  of  grace. 

The  later  separation  of  regeneration  from  baptism,  by 
the  Methodists  and  Evangelicals,  in  the  interest  of  the  per- 
sonal experience  of  regeneration,  made  baptismal  regenera- 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM  263 

tion  still  more  uncertain  to  a  large  number  of  Anglo-Saxon 
Christians.  In  their  zeal  for  the  religious  experience  of  re- 
generation they  failed  to  distinguish  that  from  the  regenera- 
tive work  of  baptism,  which  may  or  may  not  be  connected 
with  that  experience.  Baptismal  regeneration  is  one  thing, 
spiritual  regeneration  is  another  thing;  they  may  coincide, 
they  may  not. 

The  Calvinistic  insistence,  that  the  regenerative  work  of 
the  divine  Spirit  is  not  tied  necessarily  to  the  sacramental 
elements  of  baptism,  is  undoubtedly  important,  in  so  far  as  that 
the  divine  Spirit  may  regenerate  those  who,  according  to  the 
Roman  Catholic  doctrine,  have  the  baptism  of  desire,  but 
who  for  various  reasons  cannot  receive  the  Sacrament  of 
Baptism;  but  when,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  claimed  that 
the  divine  Spirit  may  not  be  operative  when  the  Sacrament 
is  validly  performed,  it  is  an  entirely  different  matter. 

If  there  is  no  Sacramental  grace  in  Baptism,  made  effectual 
by  the  divine  Spirit,  but  all  that  it  stands  for  may  be  received 
by  the  inward  work  of  the  divine  Spirit  upon  the  soul  in  con- 
version, then  the  Quakers  and  Salvationists  are  correct  in  their 
refusal  to  use  Baptism.  The  only  justification  for  its  use, 
is  that  it  bears  with  it  a  suflScient  and  effectual  sacramental 
grace,  and  that  thereby  through  the  personal  action  of  the 
divine  Spirit  a  personal  union  is  effected  of  the  baptised 
with  Christ  and  his  Church.  All  Christian  Churches,  how- 
ever faulty  they  may  be  in  theory,  in  fact  regard  Baptism  as 
the  door  of  entrance  into  the  Christian  Church.  The  path- 
way to  concord  here  is  in  a  fuller  recognition  of  the  work  of 
the  divine  Spirit  in  the  Sacraments,  without  in  any  way  de- 
preciating the  grace  which  is  offered  and  conveyed  by  them 
in  their  proper  use. 

3.   Sacramental  Presence  of  Christ 

The  Sacraments  gain  their  chief  significance  in  that 
they  are  institutions  of  Jesus  Christ  himself,  which  also  bear 
with  them  to  us  the  real  presence  of  Christ  himself,  the  Son 
of  God,  the  Son  of  the  Father,  the  Redeemer  of  mankind. 


264  CHURCH  UNITY 

The  chief  question  here  is  as  to  the  nature  of  the  presence 
of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist;  but  that  is  not  the  only  question, 
for  the  presence  of  our  Lord  in  Baptism  is  also  an  important 
question,  though  often  disregarded.  Indeed,  the  water  of 
baptism  stands  for  the  cleansing  and  vitalising  blood  of 
Christ,  just  as  truly  as  does  the  wine  in  the  Holy  Communion. 
But  the  question  of  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist 
is  so  profound  a  question,  and  one  upon  which  so  much  de- 
pends, that  we  must  spend  our  strength  upon  that,  especially 
as  the  solution  of  that  question  will  carry  with  it  the  solution 
of  all  the  others.    The  Council  of  Trent 

teaches,  and  openly  and  simply  professes,  that  in  the  august  Sacra- 
ment of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  after  the  consecration  of  the  bread  and  wine, 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  God  and  man,  is  tndy,  really  and  substantially 
contained  under  the  species  of  those  sensible  things.  (Sess.  xiii, 
chap,  i.) 

The  adjectives  truly,  really  and  svbstantially  express  the 
antithesis  to  three  several  theories  of  the  presence  which 
are  hereby  rejected.  Our  Lord  is  truly  present  under  the 
species  of  bread  and  wine,  and  not  merely  figuratively  or 
symbolically  present.  He  is  really  present  and  not  merely 
virtuxdly,  through  the  virtue  or  benefits  that  the  Sacrament 
bestows  from  him.  He  is  substantially  present  as  body 
and  blood,  and  not  merely  present  by  his  spirit  apart  from 
his  body.     Two  Canons  make  this  still  more  distinct. 

If  any  one  denieth  that  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  most  Holy  Eucharist 
are  contained  truly,  really  and  substantially  the  body  and  blood  together 
with  the  soul  and  divinity  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  consequently 
the  whole  Christ;  but  saith  that  he  is  only  therein  as  in  a  sign,  or  in 
figure  or  virtue,  let  him  be  an  anathema.  (Can.  i.)  ...  If  any 
one  saith  that  Christ,  given  in  the  Eucharist,  is  eaten  spiritually  only, 
and  not  also  sacramentally  and  really,  let  him  be  anathema.  (Can. 
viii.) 

The  first  Canon  was  designed  to  rule  out  the  Zwinglian 
opinion,  the  second,  the  Calvinistic;  but  it  does  not  state 
the  Calvinistic  theory  correctly,  and  only  rules  out  what 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM  265 

Calvin  himself  would  repudiate.  Reserving  for  the  present 
the  relation  between  the  elements  and  the  presence  of  Christ, 
and  limiting  ourselves  to  the  reality  of  the  presence  of  Christ, 
we  may  state  that  Calvinists  also  maintain  the  true,  real  and 
substantial  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the 
Eucharist.  When  the  Calvinist  feeds  on  Christ  in  his  heart 
by  faith  with  thanksgiving,  he  not  only  partakes  of  him  spirit- 
ually, but  also  sacramen tally  and  really,  as  we  pray: 

Grant  us,  therefore,  gracious  Lord,  so  to  eat  the  flesh  of  thy  dear 
Son,  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  drink  his  blood,  that  our  sinful  bodies  may 
be  made  clean  by  his  body  and  our  souls  washed  through  his  most 
precious  blood,  and  that  we  may  evermore  dwell  in  him,  and  he  in  us. 

Calvin  says: 

For  there  are  some  who  define,  in  a  word,  that  to  eat  the  flesh  of 
Christ,  and  to  drink  his  blood,  is  no  other  than  to  believe  in  Christ  him- 
self. But  I  conceive  that  in  that  remarkable  discourse  in  which  Christ 
recommends  us  to  feed  upon  his  body,  he  intended  to  teach  us  something 
more  striking  and  sublime;  namely,  that  we  are  quickened  by  a  real 
participation  of  him,  which  he  designated  by  the  terms  eating  and  drink- 
ing^  that  no  person  might  suppose  the  life  which  we  receive  from  him 
to  consist  in  simple  knowledge.  For  it  is  not  seeing  but  eating  bread 
that  administers  nourishment  to  the  body;  so,  it  is  necessary  for  the 
soul  to  have  a  true  and  complete  participation  of  Christ,  that  by  his 
power  it  may  be  quickened  to  spiritual  life.  At  the  same  time,  we  con- 
fess that  there  is  no  other  eating  than  by  faith,  as  it  is  impossible  to 
imagine  any  other;  but  the  difference  between  me  and  the  persons  whose 
sentiments  I  am  opposing  is  this:  they  consider  eating  to  be  the  very 
same  as  believing;  I  say,  that  in  believing  we  eat  the  flesh  of  Christ, 
because  he  is  actually  made  ours  by  faith,  and  this  eating  is  the  fruit 
and  effect  of  faith;  or,  to  express  it  more  plainly,  they  consider  the  eating 
to  be  faith  itself;  but  I  apprehend  it  to  be  rather  a  consequence  of  faith. 
The  difference  is  small  in  words,  but  in  the  thing  itself  it  is  considerable. 
{Inst,  Bk.  iv,  chap.  17,  (5).) 

Though  the  eating  and  drinking  are  by  faith,  and  in  so 
far  a  spiritual  appropriation,  yet  there  is  a  spiritual  appropri- 
ation of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  which  are,  by  means 
of  faith,  sacramentally  and  really  eaten.  So  far  as  the  true, 
real  and  substantial  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of 


266  CHURCH  UNITY 

Christ  in  the  Eucharist  is  concerned,  Roman  Catholic, 
Greek,  Oriental  and  Calvinist  agree.  There  are  only  differ- 
ences of  statement  as  to  the  mode  of  the  sacramental  pres- 
ence and  the  sacramental  eating  and  drinking.  Those  who 
disagree  from  the  consensus  which  we  have  found,  are  min- 
isters and  people  who  are  not  in  full  accord  with  the  teach- 
ing and  practice  of  the  Churches  to  which  they  belong. 
Irenic  divmes  should  emphasise  and  state  more  fully  and  com- 
prehensively the  consensus,  and  recognise  that  the  dissensus 
is  really  of  small  importance. 

III.  THE  RELATION  OF  THE  GRACE  CONFERRED  TO  THE 
ELEMENTS,  THROUGH  WHICH  IT  IS  CONFERRED 

We  have  seen  that  the  divine  grace  conferred  by  the  Sacra- 
ments is  a  sufficient,  effectual  and  irresistible  grace,  and  that 
it  bears  in  it  the  divine  presence  as  well  as  the  divine  power, 
and  that  the  divine  presence  is  especially  the  presence  of 
Jesus  Christ  himself.  The  difficult  question  now  emerges, 
how  is  that  presence  connected  with  the  elements  themselves  ? 
This  is  die  question  upon  which  Christendom  is  so  greatly 
divided.  The  question  chiefly  concerns  the  Eucharist,  and 
in  connection  with  the  Eucharist  it  must  be  decided. 

1.   Conversion 

The  ancient  term  for  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucha- 
rist was  Conversion.  This  is  the  term  still  used  in  the  Greek 
Church.  It  is  also  the  official  term  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  for  the  Council  of  Trent  says 

that  by  the  consecration  of  the  bread,  and  of  the  wine,  a  conversion 
is  made  of  the  whole  substance  of  the  bread  into  the  substance  of  the 
body  of  Christ  our  Lord,  and  of  the  whole  substance  of  the  wine  into 
the  substance  of  his  blood;  which  conversion  is,  by  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church,  suitably  and  properly  called  transubstantiation.     (Cap.  iv.) 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  Conversion  is  the  official  term, 
and  that  Transubstantiation  must  be  interpreted  in  the  sense 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM  267 

of  Conversion,  of  which  Transubstantiation  is  a  suitable  and 
proper  equivalent.  The  term  Conversion  is  older  than  the 
Scholastic  Theology,  and  more  wide-spread  in  the  Church 
than  the  Mediaeval  Scholasticism.  It  is  the  true  Catholic 
term,  of  which  Transubstantiation  is  said  to  be  the  Scholastic 
equivalent.  And  so  it  was  the  proposal  of  the  great  irenic 
Roman  Catholic  divine,  Spinola,  Bishop  of  Neustadt,  Vi- 
enna, that  conversion  should  be  the  term  upon  the  basis  of 
which  the  reunion  of  Christendom  should  be  sought.  This 
proposal  was  approved  by  the  Pope,  and  the  cardinals,  and 
the  general  of  the  Jesuits  in  1688,  and  agreed  to  by  Leibnitz, 
the  greatest  Protestant  scholar  of  his  age,  and  it  should  be 
always  regarded  as  the  basis  for  concord  by  irenic  divines. 
Indeed,  Transubstantiation  did  not  become  an  official  term 
in  the  Catholic  Church  until  the  fourth  council  of  the  Lateran 
in  1215,  and  it  cannot  be  understood  apart  from  the  Scholas- 
tic terminology  of  substance  and  accidents.  It  stands  and 
falls  with  this  philosophical  distinction,  whereas  Conversion 
is  older  than  the  Scholastic  Philosophy,  and  is  entirely  inde- 
pendent of  its  technical  terminology. 

The  ancient  Catholic  doctrine  was,  that  the  consecration 
of  the  elements  by  the  use  of  the  words  of  institution,  and  the 
divine  agency  connected  therewith,  converts  the  bread  and 
wine  into  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord,  so  that  our  Lord's 
body  and  blood  are  really  present,  under  outward  forms  of 
bread  and  wine,  and  not  merely  symbolically  or  figuratively 
present.  The  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  goes  further 
and  defines  that  conversion  as  a  transubstantiation  of  the 
whole  substance  of  the  bread  and  the  wine  into  the  substance 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  The  accidents  of  bread 
and  wine  remain  after  consecration  as  before  consecration. 
All  that  the  senses  can  discern  are  still  bread  and  wine,  but 
the  substance  of  bread  and  wine,  in  which  these  accidents 
inhere,  is  no  longer  there.  The  whole  of  that  has  disappeared 
and  the  accidents  remain  without  any  substance  whatever 
to  sustain  them.  The  whole  of  that  has  been  changed  into 
the  substance  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  which  can 


268  CHURCH  UNITY 

only  be  discerned  by  faith  and  not  by  the  human  senses. 
This  is  in  general  the  doctrine  of  the  Council  of  Trent. 
But  the  Liturgy  of  the  Mass  is  much  older,  and  it  abides  by 
the  ancient  Catholic  doctrine  of  conversion. 

The  Churches  of  the  Reformation  all  rejected  the  dogma 
of  Transubstantiation  with  the  Scholastic  distinction  of  sub- 
stance and  accidents  therein  involved;  but  they  could  not 
agree  upon  any  dogma  to  put  in  its  place.  Luther's  theory 
is  usually  called  Consubstantiation,  although  it  is  generally 
agreed  by  Lutherans  that  this  term  is  not  altogether  ap- 
propriate. At  the  same  time  the  Lutheran  dogma  is  suffi- 
ciently distinct  as  stated  in  The  Formula  of  Concord: 

We  believe,  teach  and  confess,  that  in  the  Lord's  Supper  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  are  truly  and  substantially  present,  and  they  are 
truly  distributed,  and  taken  together  with  the  bread  and  vnne.  .  .  .  We 
believe,  teach  and  confess  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  taken 
with  the  bread  and  wine,  not  only  spiritually  through  faith,  but  also  by 
the  mouth,  nevertheless  not  Capemaitically,  but  after  a  spiritual  and 
heavenly  manner,  by  reason  of  the  sacramental  union.  (Art.  vii, 
Affirm.  1,  6.) 

This  conception  of  a  sacramental  union  of  the  substance  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  with  the  bread  and  wine  was 
Luther's  way  of  conserving  the  strict  interpretation  of  the 
words  of  institution,  and  at  the  same  time  avoiding  the 
Scholastic  dogma  of  Transubstantiation  and  the  abuses  of 
many  kinds  that  had  been  attached  to  it  in  the  age  of  the 
Reformation. 

The  Swiss  reformers  could  no  more  accept  Luther's 
dogma  than  they  could  that  of  the  Scholastic  Theology. 
Zwingli  reverted  to  the  figurative  or  symbolic  interpretation 
of  the  words  of  institution,  and  insisted  that  Christ's  body 
and  blood  were  locally  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father  in 
Heaven,  and  that  they  could  not  be  in  any  other  place,  and 
certainly  not  in  many  places.  Zwingli  reduced  the  presence 
of  Christ  to  a  spiritual  presence,  the  presence  of  the  person 
of  Christ  to  the  person  of  the  believer  by  means  of  faith.  Ac- 
cording to  this  doctrine,  there  was  no  real  presence  at  all  of 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM  269 

the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord;  and  so  the  Eucharist  be- 
came essentially  a  memorial  Supper,  little  more  than  an 
ancient  Love  Feast,  celebrated  in  obedience  to  the  Lord's 
command;  and  the  sacramental  communion  was  little  more 
than  spiritual  communion  without  the  Sacrament.  The 
Swiss  reformers  were  not  content  with  Zwingli's  view,  and 
so,  gradually  after  his  death,  the  Reformed  Churches  adopted 
Calvin's  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist. 

Calvin  asserted  the  real  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
our  Lord  in  the  Eucharist  to  the  believer,  discerned  by  faith; 
but  he  did  not  attach  that  presence  so  closely  to  the  elements 
as  Luther  did;  and  so  the  elements  were  taken  into  the 
mouth,  but  not  the  body  or  blood  of  our  Lord,  which  could 
only  be  discerned  and  used  by  faith.  Calvin's  doctrine,  or 
rather  Bucer's,  which  was  essentially  the  same,  was  adopted 
by  the  Church  of  England  in  the  Articles  of  Religion,  and 
also  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  especially  in  the  words: 

Take  and  eat  this  in  remembrance  that  Christ  died  for  thee,  and 
feed  on  him  in  thy  heart  by  faith  with  thanksgiving. 

Melanchthon  also  adopted  Calvin's  view,  which  had  all 
along  been  essentially  his  own,  as  well  as  Bucer's;  and  it 
finally  prevailed  in  the  Evangelical  Churches  of  Germany. 
The  official  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  and  Methodist 
Churches  is  Calvinistic,  and  so  also  of  most  other  Protestant 
denominations.  But  it  is  probable  that  most  American 
Protestants  have  departed  from  the  official  doctrine  of  their 
Churches  and  are  rather  Zwinglians  than  Calvinists.  Charles 
Hodge  exerted  a  sad  influence  in  this  direction.^  The  Cal- 
vinistic theory,  while  it  avoids  most  of  the  difficulties  felt  by 
scholars  with  regard  to  Transubstantiation  and  Consub- 
stantiation,  still  has  difficulties  of  its  own  which  have  made 
it  unacceptable  to  many  modem  British  and  American  Prot- 
estants.    As  Van  Dyke  says: 

There  is  in  our  day  a  wide-spread  defection  from  the  doctrine  of  the 
Sacraments  as  taught  in  all  the  Creeds  of  the  Reformation.    This  de- 

»  System.  Theol.  Ill,  pp.  646-50. 


270  CHURCH  UNITY 

parture  is  not  only  nor  chiefly  towards  Rome.  The  drift  is  much 
stronger  in  the  direction  of  a  vague  formalism,  which  makes  the  holy 
ordinances  instituted  by  Christ  mere  outward  signs  having  no  divinely 
appointed  connection  with  an  inward  and  spiritual  grace.  "Low 
Churchmen"  in  all  denominations  vie  with  each  other  in  making  the 
Sacraments  simply  memorials  of  Christ  and  badges  of  a  Christian  pro- 
fession.    {The  Church,  Her  Ministry  and  Sacraments,  p.  162.) 

It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  it  is  possible  for  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  to  be  eaten  and  drunk  by  faith.  It  is 
easy  enough  to  understand  how  faith  with  the  aid  of  the 
memory  and  the  imagination  can  recall  to  mind  and  vividly 
realise  the  presence  of  the  Christ  of  the  cross,  and  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  or  even  imagine  the  Lord  as  priest  and  vic- 
tim at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father;  but  that  is  the  going 
forth  of  faith  to  the  absent  Christ,  not  the  coming  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  to  us  in  the  Eucharist.  If  this  were  all 
there  is  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  Friends  and  Salvationists 
would  be  correct  when  they  say,  "We  can  remember  our  Lord 
and  realise  his  presence  much  better  apart  by  ourselves  in 
prayer  and  religious  meditation  than  we  can  in  the  public 
ceremonies  of  the  Eucharist.'* 

The  official  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Churches  is  altogether 
different  from  this.     As  the  Gallican  Confession  says: 

Although  he  be  in  heaven  until  he  come  to  judge  all  the  earth,  still 
we  believe  that  by  the  secret  and  incomprehensible  power  of  his  Spirit, 
He  feeds  and  strengthens  us  with  the  substance  of  his  body  and  blood. 
We  hold  that  this  is  done  spiritually,  not  because  we  put  imagination 
and  fancy  in  the  place  of  fact  and  truth,  but  because  the  greatness  of 
this  mystery  exceeds  the  measure  of  our  senses,  and  the  laws  of  nature. 
In  short,  because  it  is  heavenly,  it  can  only  be  apprehended  by  faith, 
(xxxvi.) 

Thus  the  Reformed  Churches  recognise  the  real  presence 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  our  Lord  in  the  Eucharist, 
and  that  his  body  and  blood  are  discerned  by  faith  and  eaten 
and  drunk  by  faith.  Now  it  is  easy  to  understand  that  they 
may  be  mentally  discerned  by  faith  in  the  use  of  the  religious 
memory  and  imagination;    but  it  is  diflScult  to  understand, 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM  271 

on  any  principle  of  Philosophy,  how  faith  can  feed  upon  the 
body  of  our  Ix>rd.  In  fact,  there  is  no  avoidance  of  the  con- 
clusion that  faith  can  feed  upon  the  body  and  blood  of  our 
Lord,  after  all,  only  in  a  figurative  sense,  and  in  no  real  sense. 
Calvin  himself,  and  the  Gallican  Confession,  and  other 
Reformed  theologians  and  Confessions,  state  distinctly 
enough  that  they  mean,  as  has  been  shown,  that  there  is  a 
sacramental  feeding  which  is  distinct  from  faith,  although 
mediated  by  faith.  But  without  this  qualification  the  ordi- 
nary Calvinistic  statement,  that  we  eat  and  drink  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  our  Lord  by  faith,  is  exposed  to  the  following 
criticism  of  the  Formula  of  Concord : 

Under  these  high-sounding  phrases,  they  hide  and  hold  fast  the  same 
gross  opinion  (as  the  Zwinglians),  to  wit,  that  besides  the  bread  and 
wine,  there  is  nothing  more  present,  or  taken  with  the  mouth,  in  the 
Lord's  Supper.  For  the  term  "spiritually"  signifies  nothing  more  than 
the  spirit  of  Christ,  or  the  virtue  of  the  absent  body  of  Christ  and  his 
merit  which  is  present.  .  .  .  But  they  think  that  the  body  of  Christ 
itself  is  in  no  way  present,  but  is  contained  above  in  the  highest  heaven, 
and  they  affirm  that  it  behooves  us  by  the  meditation  of  faith  to  rise  on 
high  and  ascend  into  heaven,  and  that  this  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
are  to  be  sought  there,  and  nowise  in  union  with  the  bread  and  wine  of 
the  Holy  Supper.     (Art.  vii.) 

It  is  necessary  for  the  Calvinists  to  go  further  and  define 
what  they  mean  by  eating  and  drinking  as  distinguished 
from  believing.  The  Calvinistic  theory  is  too  indefinite  to 
be  altogether  satisfactory. 

It  should  be  admitted  that  the  Lutheran  and  Calvinistic 
conceptions  of  the  Eucharist  have  no  philosophy  whatever 
to  sustain  them.  These  theories  were  efforts  to  conserve 
the  Biblical  teaching  without  the  complication  and  incon- 
venience of  the  Roman  dogma.  The  Roman  Catholic  con- 
ception has  at  least  the  Scholastic  Philosophy  at  its  back. 
This  is  doubtless  the  reason  why  the  Zwinglian  conception 
has  to  so  great  an  extent  taken  possession  of  the  modem 
Protestant  world,  especially  in  Great  Britain  and  America. 
It  is  intelligible,  it  is  rational  so  far  as  communion  with 


272  CHURCH   UNITY 

Christ  is  concerned;  but  then,  in  fact,  the  Sacrament  ceases 
to  be  a  real  Sacrament  altogether,  because  such  communion 
may  be  enjoyed  much  better  apart  from  the  Sacrament  than 
by  the  use  of  it. 

It  ought  to  be  evident  that  the  Christian  Church  has  not 
yet  solved  the  problem  of  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eu- 
charist, so  far  as  his  relation  to  the  elements  of  bread  and 
wine  is  concerned,  and  that  it  is  better  to  adhere  to  the  ancient 
Catholic  term  Conversion  as  a  basis  for  further  investigation, 
as  Spinola  and  Leibnitz  urged,  rather  than  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic Transubstantiation,  the  Lutheran  Consubstantiation  or 
the  Calvinistic  feeding  by  faith. 

2.   The  EvjcJmristic  Sacrifice 

We  must  now  take  up  the  question  of  Sacrifice  in  con- 
nection with  the  Eucharist;  for  the  doctrine  of  the  presence 
really  depends  upon  that  of  Sacrifice.  The  theologians  in 
the  Middle  Ages  had  lost  in  great  measure  the  Biblical  doc- 
trine of  sacrifice.  The  doctrine  of  a  substitutionary  atone- 
ment had  led  them  to  emphasise  and  exaggerate  substitu- 
tion in  sacrifice,  and  to  regard  the  death  of  the  victim  as  the 
essential  thing;  just  as  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  the  Middle 
Ages  thought  more  of  the  Cross  than  they  did  of  the  Incar- 
nation or  of  the  Resurrection.  The  Mass  thus  became 
to  them  essentially  an  expiatory  sacrifice  and  the  immolation 
of  the  victim  the  essential  element.  Such  conceptions, 
prevalent  in  the  pre-Reformation  Church,  were  open  to  the 
objections  made  by  Protestants  on  the  basis  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  and  stated  rather  rudely  in  the  Articles  of 
Religion : 

The  offering  of  Christ  once  made  is  that  perfect  redemption,  pro- 
pitiation and  satisfaction  for  all  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  both  original 
and  actual,  and  there  is  none  other  satisfaction  for  sin  but  that  alone: 
Wherefore  the  sacrifices  of  Masses,  in  the  which  it  was  commonly  said  that 
the  priest  did  offer  Christ  for  the  quick  and  the  dead,  to  have  remission 
of  pain  or  guilt,  were  blasphemous  fables  and  dangerous  deceits,  (xxxi.) 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM  273 

The  Protestant  Churches,  when  they  rejected  the  Roman 
Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  owing  to  the 
common  errors  connected  with  it,  did  not  substitute  for  it 
the  Biblical  doctrine  of  Sacrifice,  or  give  their  just  value  to 
the  Biblical  elements  contained  in  the  Catholic  doctrine. 
According  to  the  New  Testament,  Jesus  Christ  is  at  once  the 
great  High  Priest  after  the  Order  of  Melchizedek,  and  also 
the  sacrificial  victim,  who  sums  up  in  himself  the  significance 
of  the  entire  sacrificial  system  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Biblical  Theology  has  entirely  transformed  the  concep- 
tions of  priesthood  and  sacrifice  in  recent  times.  It  was  not 
the  function  of  the  priest  to  slaughter  the  victim,  but  to  pre- 
sent the  flesh  and  blood  of  the  victim  at  the  divine  altars. 
The  significance  of  the  sacrifice  did  not  consist  so  much  in 
the  immolation  of  the  victim,  as  in  the  use  that  was  made 
of  the  flesh  and  blood  of  the  victim  after  it  was  slaughtered. 
This  use  of  the  flesh  and  blood  gradually  originated  four 
kinds  of  sacrifice:  the  Peace  offering,  the  Whole  Burnt  offer- 
ing, the  Sin  offering  and  the  Trespass  offering.  In  addition 
to  these  there  were  the  unbloody  offerings  of  bread  and  wine 
which  usually  accompanied  the  bloody  offerings,  but  which 
might  be  offered  by  themselves,  under  certain  conditions 
and  circumstances. 

Now,  in  the  New  Testament,  Jesus  Christ  is  represented 
as  summing  up  all  the  sacrifices  in  himself.^  This  is  dis- 
tinctly recognised  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  when  it  says : 

This,  in  fine,  is  that  oblation  which  was  prefigured  by  various  types 
of  sacrifices  during  the  period  of  nature  and  of  the  Law;  inasmuch  as 
it  comprises  all  the  good  things  signified  by  those  sacrifices,  as  being  the 
consummation  and  perfection  of  them  all.     (Sess.  xxii,  cap.  1.) 

At  the  same  time  the  Council  of  Trent  puts  the  emphasis 
upon  the  propitiatory  sacrifice,  and  does  not  give  the  other 
sacrifices  their  proper  value  and  importance. 

(a)  The  most  primitive  and  wide-spread  of  the  ancient  sac- 
rifices was  the  so-called  Peace  offering^  whose  chief  signifi- 
*  See  Briggs,  Messiah  of  the  Apostles,  pp.  525  t 


274  CHURCH  UNITY 

cance  was  in  the  communion  meal,  in  which  God  shared  with 
the  offerer  and  his  friends.  This  kind  of  sacrifice  branched  out 
into  several  kinds :  the  Covenant  sacrifice,  in  which,  besides 
the  eating  of  the  flesh  of  the  victim,  the  blood  was  scattered 
about  upon  the  people  to  consecrate  them  to  the  Covenant 
of  Horeb,  once  for  all  at  the  origin  of  the  national  religion ; 
the  Passover  sacrifice,  where  the  flesh  and  blood  were  used 
in  a  similar  way  at  the  annual  commemoration  of  the  Exodus 
from  Egypt;  and  numerous  thank-offerings,  votive  and  festal 
offerings,  in  which  the  blood  went  to  the  divine  altar,  but 
the  greater  portion  of  the  flesh  of  the  victim  was  eaten  at  the 
communion  meal.  Now  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
Christian  Eucharist  was  connected  by  our  Lord  according 
to  the  Gospels  with  the  Covenant  Sacrifice,  and  the  Passover;^ 
and  by  St.  Paul  in  his  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,^  not 
only  with  these  but  also  with  the  thank-offerings  and  festal 
offerings. 

The  two  essential  features  of  the  Sacrifice  are  the  offering 
of  the  flesh  and  blood  to  God  by  the  priest,  and  the  partaking 
of  the  flesh  and  blood  by  the  people.  Now  it  is  evident  that 
the  Holy  Eucharist  has  these  two  essential  features. 

But  before  considering  these,  it  is  important  to  consider 
the  relation  of  the  unbloody  sacrifice  of  bread  and  wine 
to  the  bloody  sacrifice  of  flesh  and  blood.  The  earliest 
Christian  writers  regarded  the  Eucharist  as  that  unbloody 
sacrifice,  the  pure  Minchah  predicted  in  Messianic  times  by 
the  prophet  Malachi.^  This  opinion  has  always  persisted 
in  the  Christian  Church,  and  reappears  in  the  Council  of 
Trent,  when  it  says: 

This  is,  indeed,  that  clean  oblation,  which  cannot  be  defiled  by 
any  unworthiness  or  malice  of  those  that  offer,  which  the  Lord  foretold 
by  Malachias  was  to  be  offered  in  every  place,  clean  to  his  name,  which 
was  to  be  great  among  the  Gentiles.     (Sess.  xxii,  cap.  1.) 

>  Mk.  xiv.  22-26;  Mt.  xxvi.  26-29;  Lk.  xxii.  15-20.  See  Briggs, 
Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  pp.  120  sq. 

"  XI.  23-26;  x.  16-21;  v.  7.     See  Messiah  of  the  Apostles,  pp.  100  sq. 
«I,  11.      Seep.  64. 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM  275 

The  Council  connected  the  unbloody  sacrifice  with  the 
bloody  in  this  way: 

The  victim  is  one  and  the  same,  the  same  now  offering  by  the  min- 
istry of  priests,  who  then  offered  himself  on  the  cross,  the  manner  alone 
of  offering  being  different.  The  fruits,  indeed,  of  which  oblation,  of 
that  bloody  one,  to  wit,  are  received  most  plentifully  through  this 
unbloody  one.     (Sess.  xxii,  cap.  2.) 

The  Eucharist  is  a  sacrifice,  in  that  it  has  the  two  chief 
parts  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  Peace  offering,  the  offering  of  the 
sacrifice  to  God,  and  the  partaking  of  the  sacrifice  by  the 
communicants. 

The  offering  is  an  unbloody  one  of  bread  and  wine  at 
the  earthly  altar — it  is  a  bloody  one  of  flesh  and  blood  at  the 
heavenly  altar,  both  offerings  by  the  great  High  Priest  him- 
self, the  earthly  one  through  the  mediation  of  his  priests, 
the  heavenly  one  directly  by  our  Lord  himself.  The  Greeks, 
Orientals  and  Roman  Catholics  offer  the  elements  of  bread 
and  wine.  When  the  Anglican  Mass  substituted  for  these 
elements,  in  the  Canon  of  1549,  "our  prayers  and  supplica- 
tions," it  is  evident  that  they  meant  to  exclude  the  elements 
from  the  sacrifice,  and  make  it  one  merely  of  'prayer.  The 
Reformed  Churches  take  the  same  position,  although  they 
avoid  the  term  sacrifice,  on  account  of  the  abuse  of  it  by  the 
Roman  Catholics.  These  great  Churches  of  the  Reformation 
made  a  great  mistake  here.  They  retained  the  use  of  the 
bread  and  wine,  and  yet  they  interpreted  the  sacrifice  in  terms 
of  prayer.  This,  however,  only  introduces  another  difiiculty 
into  a  situation  already  in  itself  sufficiently  diflScult,  for  we 
had  to  make  the  connection  between  the  elements  of  bread 
and  wine,  and  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ;  and  now 
we  have  to  make  the  still  further  connection  between  the 
prayers  of  the  people  and  them  both.  If  the  sacrifice  offered 
is  simply  and  alone  prayers,  in  what  respect  does  the  offer- 
ing of  prayers  at  the  Eucharist  differ  from  the  offering  of 
prayers  at  Morning  and  Evening  Prayer?  The  only  differ- 
ence is  the  subject-matter  of  the  prayers,  that  they  are  eucha- 


276  CHURCH  UNITY 

ristic  prayers.  What,  then,  is  it  but  that  the  sacred  elements 
may  become  a  real  eucharist  by  the  union  of  the  elements 
with  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  ? 

This  union  is  effected,  according  to  the  Greek  Canon,  by 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  implicitly  taking  the  elements 
to  the  heavenly  altar  and  explicitly  bringing  them  to  the 
earthly  altar  as  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  In  the  Roman 
Mass  this  is  accomplished  by  the  Holy  Angel  explicitly  taking 
the  elements  to  the  Heavenly  Altar  and  implicitly  returning 
them  to  the  earthly  altar.  In  the  Anglican  Canon  of  1549 
both  agents  are  mentioned  together  with  the  words  of  insti- 
tution. In  the  Scottish  and  American  Episcopal  Canons, 
the  words  of  Institution  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  the  agents 
of  the  change.  In  these  several  conceptions  it  is  recognised 
that  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine  are  made  to  the  communi- 
cant the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ  by  the  divine  power. 

The  altar  table  of  the  Church  is  attached  to  the  heavenly 
altar,  the  unbloody  oblation  is  attached  to  the  bloody  oblation, 
in  such  a  sacramental  way  that,  to  use  the  words  of  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent,  "the  fruits,  indeed,  of  which  oblation,  of  that 
bloody  one  to  wit,  are  received  most  plentifully  through  the 
unbloody  one."  The  Church  on  earth,  by  its  union  with 
Christ  through  his  high  priestly  oflBce,  offers  Christ  himself 
as  a  perfect  sacrifice  to  God  on  the  altar  table  of  the  Church 
in  the  form  of  bread  and  wine;  on  the  heavenly  altar  in  the 
form  of  flesh  and  blood  of  the  victim  of  Calvary.  We  should 
recognise  and  assert  that  the  Eucharist  is  a  sacrifice,  an  offer- 
ing of  an  oblation  by  the  Church,  and  not  shrink  from  sacri- 
ficial conceptions  because  of  the  misuse  of  them  that  is  some- 
times made. 

The  Eucharist  is  also  a  sacrifice  in  the  second  great  essen- 
tial feature,  the  participation  in  the  communion  festal  meal. 
The  Eucharist  is  in  its  very  nature  the  Lord*s  Supper  in 
which  the  communicants  eat  and  drink  consecrated  bread 
and  wine.  The  bread  and  the  wine  of  the  unbloody  sacrifice 
confer  all  the  benefits  of  the  bloody  sacrifice  which  is  per- 
petual in  the  heavenly  sanctuary.     The  communicants  in 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM  277 

some  sense  eat  the  flesh  and  drink  the  blood  of  the  victim 
of  Calvary.  Jesus  Christ  died  on  Calvary  once  for  all; 
there  can  be  no  repetition  of  the  killing  of  the  victim.  He 
offered  himself  once  for  all  to  the  Father,  as  a  sacrifice  for  the 
sins  of  the  world.  He  was  accepted  as  such  a  sacrifice  when 
he  rose  from  the  dead  and  returned  to  the  bosom  of  the 
Father^  While  in  this  sense  the  offering  was  made  once  for 
all,  yet  it  was  made  not  as  a  momentary  act  begun  in  that 
moment  and  ceasing  in  that  moment;  it  was  made  to  be 
and  remain  for  all  time  a  permanent  sacrifice,  always  valid 
for  all  who  will  avail  themselves  of  it.  The  only  way  in 
which  men  can  avail  themselves  of  it  is  by  sharing  in  the 
offering  and  in  the  communion.  As  our  Lord  said :  "  Except 
ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man  and  drink  his  blood,  ye 
have  not  life  in  yourselves."  ^ 

The  essential  significance  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  Eucharist 
is  in  the  Peace  offering  in  its  various  forms.  But  the  Eucha- 
rist also  sums  up  and  comprehends  the  meaning  of  the  entire 
sacrificial  system  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  was  gradually 
unfolded  in  history,  we  may  say,  to  prepare  for  the  sacrifice 
of  Calvary,  and  to  enable  us  to  understand  that  sacrifice  after 
it  had  been  made.  Thus  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Whole  Burnt 
offering  in  that  "He  gave  himself  up  for  us  an  offering  and  a 
sacrifice  to  God  for  an  odour  of  a  sweet  smell,"  ^  and  from 
that  point  of  view  it  is  proper  for  the  Anglican  Canon  to 
emphasise  the  sacrifice  of  prayer  which  the  Whole  Burnt 
offering  characteristically  represents  and  bears  up  in  the 
flame  unto  God.  It  is  also  proper  that  the  communicants 
should  present  their  "bodies,  a  living  sacrifice,  holy,  accept- 
able to  God."^  This  kind  of  sacrifice  should  not  be  over- 
looked in  the  Holy  Eucharist. 

But  Jesus  is  also  the  Sin  offering^  the  great  propitiatory 
sacrifice.     As  St.  Paul  tells  us,  we  are 

justified  freely  by  his  grace  through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ 
Jesus,  whom  God  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation  (or  propitiatory),  through 
faith,  by  his  blood.     (Rom.  iii.  24,  25.) 
» John  vi.  63.  »  Eph.  v.  2.  »Rom.  xii.  1. 


278  CHURCH  UNITY 

Inasmuch  as  the  fruits  of  the  propitiatory  sacrifice  are  re- 
ceived through  the  Eucharist,  it  is  quite  proper  to  say  with 
the  Council  of  Trent  that  the  sacrifice  of  the  Eucharist 

is  truly  propitiatory,  and  that  by  means  thereof  this  is  effected  that 
we  obtain  mercy  and  find  grace  in  seasonable  aid,  if  we  draw  nigh  unto 
God,  contrite  and  penitent,  with  a  sincere  heart  and  upright  faith,  with 
fear  and  reverence.     (Sess.  xxii,  cap.  2.) 

There  is  no  valid  reason  for  objecting  to  this  statement, 
for  it  is  not  open  to  the  Protestant  objection  that  it  discredits 
the  one  sacrifice  of  Calvary. 

The  Trespass  offering  does  not  appear  explicitly  in  the 
New  Testament,  but  it  does  implicitly  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
himself,  when  he  represented  in  the  synagogue  of  Nazareth  that 
he  was  the  martyr  prophet  of  Isaiah  liii,  who  is  also  there  repre- 
sented as  a  trespass  offering.  It  is  just  this  trespass  offer- 
ing which  emphasises  the  idea  of  compensation  for  wrong- 
doing, and  a  substitutionary  sacrifice.  The  Eucharist  cer- 
tainly ought  to  convey  to  our  minds  ever  the  thought  that  the 
sufferings  of  Christ  were  in  our  behalf,  and  in  our  stead,  and 
that  he  is  ever  both  as  priest  and  victim,  interposing  for  us 
at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  advocating  our  cause  and 
guaranteeing  as  our  surrogate  the  ultimate  fulfilment  of  the 
conditions  of  our  acceptance  with  God. 

3.  Dramatic  Representation 

Having  considered  and  defined  the  chief  elements  of  the 
sacrifice  of  the  Eucharist,  and  shown  its  relation  to  the  sev- 
eral kinds  of  sacrifice,  we  may  now,  without  peril  of  miscon- 
ception, consider  the  whole  process  of  sacrifice  according 
to  the  Biblical  forms.  These  were  (1)  The  selection  of  the 
victim ;  (2)  the  consecration  of  the  victim ;  (3)  the  slaughter 
of  the  victim.  All  these  acts  were  performed  by  the  one  who 
proposed  to  make  the  sacrifice.  The  priest  fulfilled  these 
functions  only  as  a  representative  of  the  community,  when 
the  community  as  a  body  offered  sacrifice.  The  proper 
work  of  the  priest  was  (4)  the  presentation  of  the  appropriate 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM  279 

parts  of  the  victim  at  the  divine  altar;  (5)  finally,  there  was 
the  use  of  the  appropriate  parts  of  the  victim  by  the  offerer. 
Although  the  chief  significance  of  the  offering  was  in  the  last 
two  functions,  yet  the  preceding  functions  also  had  their 
significance,  and  may  therefore  be  regarded  as  having  their 
appropriate  significance  in  the  Holy  Eucharist.  From  this 
point  of  view  we  may  see,  (1)  the  selection  and  approval  of 
the  victim  by  the  divine  voice  which  said,  "Thou  art  my 
beloved  Son,  in  thee  I  am  well  pleased";*  (2)  the  consecra- 
tion of  the  victim  in  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at  the  bap- 
tism ;  recognised  as  such  by  John  the  Baptist,  when  he  said, 
"  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the 
world."  ^  (3)  The  immolation  of  the  victim  was  upon  the 
cross  of  Calvary. 

The  Christian  Church  has  ever  seen  in  the  Eucharist  a 
dramatic  representation  of  the  entire  process  of  sacrifice. 
Thus  the  Council  of  Trent  says  that  Christ 

because  that  his  priesthood  was  not  to  be  extinguished  by  his  death, 
in  the  Last  Supper,  on  the  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed,  that  he 
might  leave  his  own  beloved  Spouse — the  Church — a  visible  sacrifice, 
such  as  the  nature  of  man  requires,  whereby  that  bloody  sacrifice  once 
to  be  accomplished  on  the  cross  might  be  represented,  and  the  memory 
thereof  remain  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world,  and  its  salutary  virtue 
be  applied  to  the  remission  of  those  sins  which  we  daily  commit,  de- 
claring himself  constituted  a  'priest  forever  according  to  the  order  of 
Melchizedek,  he  offered  up  to  God  the  Father  his  own  body  and  blood 
under  the  species  of  bread  and  wine.     (Sess.  xxii,  cap.  1.) 

From  this  point  of  view,  of  the  institution  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist  before  the  crucifixion ;  and  of  the  priestly  offering 
unto  God,  and  the  sacramental  communion,  before  the  resur- 
rection and  ascension,  it  is  necessary  to  take  a  more  com- 
prehensive survey  of  the  Eucharist  and  consider  all  the  ele- 
ments of  sacrifice.  The  term  which  the  Council  of  Trent 
uses  for  this  purpose  is  that  of  Refresentation,  This  also, 
like  Conversion,  is  an  ancient  term  altogether  independent 
of  modern  controversies.  It  was  on  that  account  urged  by 
»Mk.  1.  11.  »Johni.  29. 


280  CHURCH  UNITY 

the  Roman  Catholic  Cassander  as  a  basis  of  unity  on  this 
subject.  In  1564/  he  said  that  the  Mass  should  be  regarded 
by  all  as  a  remembrance  and  representation  of  the  priesthood 
and  sacrifice  of  Christ  continued  in  heaven.  This  was 
adopted  and  proposed  again  by  Bishop  John  Forbes,^  in 
1620;  and  finally  by  the  great  theologian  and  statesman  of 
the  Reformed  Church  of  Holland,  Hugo  Grotius,  in  1641.^ 

So,  one  of  the  chief  Roman  Catholic  divines  of  the  six- 
teenth century,  Vasquez  (  +  1604),  states  that  the  Mass  is  a 
commemorative  sacrifiee;^  and  he  regards  the  consecration  of 
the  elements  as  the  really  essential  thing  in  the  sacrifice  of 
the  Mass.  This,  then,  is  another  basis  upon  which  irenic 
divines  may  stand  for  an  ultimate  reconciliation  of  the  con- 
tending theories  and  the  reunion  of  Christendom.  The 
Eucharist  in  its  whole  extent  is  a  commemorative  sacrifice, 
a  remembrance  and  representation  of  the  priesthood  and 
sacrifice  of  Christ  in  the  entire  process,  on  earth  and  in  heaven. 

From  the  comprehensive  position  we  have  now  gained, 
the  differences  between  the  Churches  appear  to  be  different 
degrees  of  emphasis  of  particular  things,  and  the  neglect  of 
other  no  less  important  things  connected  with  the  priesthood 
and  sacrifice  of  Christ,  rather  than  differences  of  real  antag- 
onism and  of  mutual  exclusion.  All  Churches  should  rise 
above  their  narrow  and  particular  views  to  broader  and  higher 
conceptions,  and  so,  unity  will  be  attained. 

4.    The  Body  of  Christ 

Having  considered  the  Eucharist  as  a  sacrifice,  we  are  now 
better  able  to  return  to  the  question  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist.  We  may  say  without 
doubt  that  our  Lord  is  present  both  as  priest  and  as  sacrifice. 
As  priest,  he  is  ever  present  with  the  priesthood  in  all  their 
ministrations  in  accordance  with  the  apostolic  commission, 

*  ConsiUtatio. 

'  Consider ationes  modestce  et  pacificoB  controversiarum. 

'  When  he  republished  Cassander's  Consultatio,  with  annotations. 

*  DispiU.  220,  n.  26. 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM  281 

"Lo  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  * 
When  the  ministering  priest  offers  the  elements  of  bread  and 
wine,  Christ  himself  offers  them  mediately  through  him,  as 
he  offers  his  body  and  blood  at  the  heavenly  altar.  But  it  is 
especially  as  the  sacrificial  victim  that  Jesus  Christ  is  present 
in  the  bloody  sacrifice  of  his  own  flesh  and  blood,  and  in  the 
unbloody  sacrifice  of  the  bread  and  wine. 

We  have  seen  that  the  two  are  united  by  divine  action  in 
which  the  three  persons  of  the  Holy  Trinity  conspire.  Let 
us  now  consider  if  we  can  get  any  further  light  upon  the 
nature  of  the  sacramental  union.  The  body  of  Jesus  Christ, 
born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  consecrated  at  his  baptism,  cruci- 
fied on  Calvary,  rose  from  the  grave,  ascended  into  heaven, 
is  enthroned  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  will  return  in 
glory  to  the  earth  at  the  second  advent.  This  is  the  doctrine 
of  the  Universal  Christian  Church.  But  the  Church  has 
not  made  enough  of  the  reigning  Christ,  and  has  been 
negligent  in  her  study  of  the  body  of  our  great  High  Priest. 

The  body  of  Christ  remained  the  same  throughout  all  its 
earthly  and  heavenly  experiences,  but  its  properties  and 
qualities  were  certainly  changed  at  the  Resurrection.  The 
body  of  the  risen  and  glorified  Christ  is  a  spiritual,  heavenly, 
incorruptible,  glorious  body;  the  same  in  substance  as  the 
earthly  body;  but  different  in  the  elements  of  which  it  is  com- 
posed and  in  their  qualities.  The  earthly  elements,  that 
belong  to  this  earth,  disappeared,  and  only  those  elements 
which  belong  to  a  spiritual  state  of  existence  remained  in 
the  heavenly  body.  Accordingly,  Christ's  heavenly  body  is 
not  subject  to  the  laws  which  govern  the  material  world, 
but  only  to  those  which  control  the  spiritual  universe. 

We  can  know  but  little  positively  about  a  spiritual  body, 
but  we  can  know  much  negatively,  what  it  is  not.  We  may 
say  at  once  that  all  the  objections  ordinarily  urged  against 
a  sacramental  union  of  the  body  of  Christ  with  the  elements 
of  bread  and  wine  are  irrelevant;  because  they  are  all  based 
on  a  misconception  of  the  nature  of  Christ's  body  and  blood 
^  Mt.  xxviii.  20. 


282  CHURCH  UNITY 

as   material   substance  instead  of  spiritual  substance.     As 
the  Council  of  Trent  says : 

For  neither  are  these  things  mutually  repugnant,  that  our  Saviour 
himself  always  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father  in  heaven,  accord- 
ing to  the  natural  mode  of  existing,  and  that,  nevertheless,  he  be  in  many 
places,  sacramentally  present  to  us  in  his  own  substance,  by  a  manner 
of  existing  which,  though  we  can  scarcely  explain  it  in  words,  yet  can  we 
by  the  understanding,  illuminated  by  faith,  conceive.    (Sess.  xiii,  cap.  1.) 

This,  indeed,  is  in  accord  with  St.  Paul's  words: 

So  also  is  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  It  is  sown  in  corruption; 
it  is  raised  in  incorruption:  it  is  sown  in  dishonour;  it  is  raised  in  glory: 
it  is  sown  in  weakness;  it  is  raised  in  power:  it  is  sown  a  sensuous 
body;  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body.  If  there  is  a  sensuous  body,  there 
is  also  a  spiritual.  So  also  it  is  written,  "The  first  man,  Adam,  became 
a  living  soul."  The  last  Adam  is  a  life-giving  spirit.  However,  that 
is  not  first  which  is  spiritual,  but  that  which  is  sensuous;  then,  that 
which  is  spiritual.  The  first  man  is  of  the  earth  earthy:  the  second  man 
is  of  heaven.     (I  Cor.  xv.  42-47.) 

(a)  The  body  of  Christ  is  not  present  under  the  species  of 
bread  and  wine  in  the  manner  of  material  substance,  but  of 
spiritual  substance.     As  the  Roman  Catechism  says: 

We  do  not  say  that  Christ  our  Lord  is  in  the  Sacrament  inasmuch 
as  he  is  great  or  small,  terms  which  appertain  to  quantity;  but  inasmuch 
as  he  is  substance.  For  the  substance  of  bread  is  changed  into  the 
substance  of  Christ  not  into  his  magnitude  or  quantity.     (II.  iv.  42.) 

It  is  not  the  earthly  body  of  our  Lord  that  is  present;  that 
was  laid  aside  forever  when  he  rose  from  the  dead;  but  his 
heavenly  body.  It  is,  indeed,  the  substance  of  our  Lord's 
body,  but  spiritual,  not  earthly  substance.  It  is  the  spiritual 
flesh  and  blood  which  the  glorified  Christ  ever  presents  to 
the  Father  in  the  heavenly  sanctuary,  not  that  earthy  kind 
of  flesh  and  blood  with  which  he  was  clothed  when  he  lived 
in  Palestine.  If  the  ghostly  body  of  the  risen  Christ  passed 
through  closed  doors  without  hindrance,^  why  should  we  say 
that  his  glorified  body  may  not  pass  through  the  outward 
» John  XX.  26. 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM  283 

enclosures  or  accidents  of  bread  and  wine  ?  Do  these  present 
to  spiritual  substance  any  greater  obstruction  than  wood 
or  stone?  Matter  is  usually  impenetrable;  but  there  are 
light  rays  which  penetrate  and  illumine  material  things. 
Why  may  not  the  glorified  body  of  Jesus  Christ  do  as  much  ? 
In  the  Christophany  of  the  Apocalypse,  the  Son  of  Man  ap- 
pears as  pure,  white,  dazzling  light,  and  yet  with  a  human 
body  blazing  forth  that  light/  According  to  the  narrative 
of  the  Gospels,  the  risen  Lord  appears  and  disappears  at  his 
pleasure;  is  known  to  his  intimates,  or  disguised  from  them, 
at  his  will.  Who  can  say  that  he  may  not  disguise  himself 
in  the  forms  of  bread  and  wine,  and  make  himself  known 
or  not  at  his  pleasure,  in  the  breaking  of  bread  ?  ^  Yahweh, 
in  the  Old  Testament,  who,  according  to  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  and  the  Apocalypse,  is  the  Christ  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, appears  in  theophany  in  a  great  variety  of  forms:  of 
man,  of  angel,  of  fire,  of  cloud,  of  light  and  of  voice.  May 
not  the  glorified  Christ  of  the  New  Testament  appear  in 
the  forms  of  bread  and  wine  ?  A  theophany  is  not  a  mere  ap- 
pearance, it  is  a  real  presence  of  God  in  sensible  forms  for 
the  purpose  of  revelation.  In  the  Apostolic  History  there 
were  several  Chris tophanies  to  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  and 
in  all  of  these  the  glorified  Christ  was  really  present  in  his 
body.  He  was  seen.  He  was  heard.  He  was  recognised 
by  his  apostles.  The  theophanic  presence  of  the  glorified 
Christ  may  help  us  to  understand  his  sacramental  presence. 
In  both  cases  alike  his  body  is  not  subject  to  the  laws  of  the 
material  world.  His  body  is  a  spiritual  body,  whose  powers 
we  can  know  only  from  evidences  derived  not  from  ordinary 
human  bodies,  but  from  spiritual  bodies. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church,  equally  with  the  Lutheran, 
rejects  the  so-called  Capernaitical,  gross,  sensuous  or  can- 
nibalistic eating  of  the  body  of  Christ.  It  is  a  sacramental 
feeding,  not  an  eating  with  the  teeth,  a  mastication  in  the 
mouth,  a  digestion  in  the  stomach;  even  if  it  be  thought 
with  the  Lutheran  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are 
»  Rev.  i.  13-16.  ^  l^^  ^xi^^  i3_35^ 


284  CHURCH  UNITY 

taken  with  the  elements  into  the  mouth,  because  of  the  sacra- 
mental union;  or  if  with  the  Roman  Catholic  it  is  supposed 
that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  remain  under  the  species 
of  bread  and  wine  so  long  as  any  particle  of  the  species  of 
bread,  or  any  drop  of  the  species  of  the  wine  remain  un- 
dissolved. 

(6)  The  presence  of  Christ  in  the  elements  of  the  Holy 
Communion  is  not  a  local  presence.  The  Catholic  Church 
has  always  rejected  the  theory  of  Impanation,  as  if  Christ 
himself  became  bread  and  wine,  in  a  similar  manner  to  his 
becoming  flesh  at  the  Incarnation.  Christ  is  not  shut  up  by 
the  priest  in  the  bread  and  the  wine  as  a  Jack  in  a  box — 
the  common,  vulgar  representation  of  polemic  Protestants  at 
the  time  of  the  Reformation.  The  presence  of  Christ  is  not 
an  enclosed  presence  in  any  sense.  As  Cardinal  Newman 
says: 

If  place  is  excluded  from  the  idea  of  the  sacramental  presence, 
therefore  division  or  distance  from  heaven  is  excluded  also.  More- 
over, if  the  idea  of  distance  is  excluded,  therefore  is  the  idea  of  motion. 
Our  Lord,  then,  neither  descends  from  heaven  upon  our  altars,  nor 
moves  when  carried  in  procession.  The  visible  species  change  their 
position,  but  he  does  not  move.  He  is  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  after  the 
manner  of  spirit.     {Via  Media,  H,  p.  220,  ed.  1877.) 

When  we  speak  of  God,  or  of  Christ,  or  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  coming  or  going,  ascending  or  descending,  we  use 
anthropomorphic  expressions,  accommodating  spiritual  re- 
alities to  the  material  worid  in  which  we  live,  in  order  that 
they  may  be  more  vividly  realised  in  our  human  experience. 
Locality  and  space  are  metaphysical  forms  of  material  things. 
God  cannot  be  localised.  He  is  omnipresent.  The  Luther- 
ans assert  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body  in  the  Eucharist, 
not  in  the  sense  of  omnipresence,  but  in  the  sense  of  mul- 
tipresence,  wherever  Christ  wills  to  be  present  in  his 
body.  But  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  rightly  refuses  this 
theory  of  ubiquity,  and  limits  its  affirmation  to  sacramental 
presence. 

The  problem  of  the  presence  of  Christ  is  a  deeper  one  than 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM  285 

is  ordinarily  supposed.  What  do  we  mean  by  the  omni- 
presence of  God  the  Father,  and  of  the  divine  Spirit,  and  of 
the  Logos,  the  Son  of  the  Father,  as  the  Mediator  of  the 
universe?  When  we  think  of  the  Son,  coming  forth  from 
the  bosom  of  the  Father  to  become  incarnate,  is  the  bosom  of 
the  Father  locaHsed  at  some  particular  place  in  the  universe  ? 
Wherever  the  Father  is,  there  is  the  Son,  and  the  divine 
Spirit.  The  bosom  of  the  Father  is  an  omnipresent  bosom 
for  the  Son.  When  the  Son  became  incarnate,  he  did  not 
come  from  a  place  distant  or  near.  He  came  forth  from 
the  Spirit  world  into  the  material  world;  from  an  illocal  ex- 
istence into  a  local  existence.  So  when  the  Son  returned  to 
the  bosom  of  the  Father  as  the  risen  and  glorified  God  Man, 
did  he  go  to  a  particular  locality  of  the  universe  ?  Is  God's 
right  hand  limited  to  one  spot  in  the  heavens  ?  Is  not  God's 
right  hand  everywhere,  where  God  is?  If  this  be  so,  the 
ascension  was  simply  the  departure  of  the  glorified  body  of 
Christ  out  of  the  material  world  into  the  spiritual  world,  out 
from  under  the  dominion  of  spacial  relations  into  the  freedom 
of  spiritual  and  divine  existence. 

This  is,  indeed,  attested  by  the  abandonment  of  local  ideas 
in  the  New  Testament  itself  when  allusion  is  made  to  sacred 
places.  Christ  himself  is  the  altar,  the  temple,  the  most 
holy  place,  the  propitiatory  of  the  Christian  dispensation, 
summing  up  in  himself  not  only  priesthood  and  sacrifice, 
but  also  altar  and  temple  and  all  sacred  places.  The  heav- 
enly altar  is  Christ  himself,  and  Christ  is  wherever  God  is.^ 

We  have  no  means  of  knowing  how  spirit  may  be  present 
in  localities,  when  in  itself  it  is  free  from  special  limitations; 
but  we  may  know  from  the  theophanies  of  Holy  Scripture, 
and  from  the  Incarnation  of  our  Lord,  that  the  divine  may 
manifest  itself  in  localities;  and  that  is  all  that  the  sacramental 
union  of  the  spiritual  body  of  our  Lord  with  the  elements 
implies. 

We  do  not  define  sacramental  presence  in  the  sense  of 
omnipresence,  any  more  than  in  the  sense  of  multipresence; 
*See  Briggs,  Messiah  of  the  Apostles,  p.  543. 


286  CHURCH  UNITY 

but  we  do  say  that  a  divine  presence  may  manifest  itself  in 
localities  without  thereby  limiting  itself  to  localities;  it 
may  manifest  itself  in  sensuous  form  without  thereby  becom- 
ing sensuous  itself.  And,  further,  it  may  manifest  itself  in 
many  places  at  the  same  time  without  thereby  limiting  itself 
to  any  one,  or  to  all  of  those  places.  And  when  we  say  that 
Christ's  glorified  body  may  be  present  in  the  Eucharistic 
elements,  we  say  that  it  may  manifest  itself  in  these  sensible 
forms  without  thereby  becoming  itself  sensible.  This  is 
what  the  distinction  between  substance  and  accidents  was 
designed  to  set  forth  in  the  scholastic  doctrine  of  the  Eucha- 
rist. The  accidents,  the  sensible  forms,  all  that  can  be  de- 
tected by  the  human  senses,  are  the  accidents  of  bread  and 
wine.  The  substance  in  which  these  accidents  inhere  is 
no  longer  bread  and  wine,  after  the  divine  power  is  put  forth 
in  connection  with  the  words  of  institution.  These  substances 
have  disappeared,  and  the  substance  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  have  taken  their  place,  not  thereby  made  sensuous 
to  be  discerned  by  the  senses,  but  remaining  spiritual  sub- 
stance to  be  discerned  only  by  those  who  by  regeneration 
have  been  made  capable  of  spiritual  discernment. 

(c)  The  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharistic 
elements  is  not  a  spacial  presence  of  size  or  shape  or  any  kind 
of  extension.  This  is  distinctly  stated  by  the  Council  of 
Trent: 

Wherefore  it  is  most  true,  that  as  much  is  contained  under  either 
species  as  under  both;  for  Christ  whole  and  entire  is  under  the  species 
of  bread,  and  under  any  part  whatsoever  of  that  species;  Hkewise  the 
whole  is  under  the  species  of  wine  and  under  the  parts  thereof.  (Sess. 
XIII,  cap.  3.) 

Every  particle  of  bread  conveys  in  it  the  whole  Christ  to 
the  communicant;  every  drop  of  wine  conveys  the  whole  Christ 
to  the  one  drinking  it.  And  so  it  is  impossible  to  think  of 
any  division  of  the  substance  of  Christ's  body  and  blood. 
The  bread  may  be  broken  into  any  number  of  particles,  but 
Christ's  body  is  not  broken.  His  body,  whole  and  entire,  is 
in  every  particle  of  that  bread.     The  wine  may  be  distributed 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM  287 

into  an  indefinite  number  of  drops;  but  the  whole  Christ 
is  in  every  drop.  It  matters  not  how  great  the  loaf  may  be, 
or  how  small  the  particles  may  be,  Christ,  whole  and  entire, 
is  in  that  loaf,  great  or  small,  or  in  that  cup,  if  it  be  a  drop  of 
wine  or  an  ocean  of  it.     As  St.  Paul  says : 

The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  a  communion  of  the 
blood  of  Christ  ?  The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  a  communion  of 
the  body  of  Christ  ?  Seeing  that  we,  who  are  many,  are  one  bread,  one 
body:  for  we  all  partake  of  the  one  bread.     (I  Cor.  x.  16-17.) 

There  are  those  who  say  that  these  distinctions  deprive 
the  heavenly  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ  of  their  reality  as 
flesh  and  blood.  Flesh  and  blood  thus  explained  are,  after 
all,  only  symbols  figurative  of  real  flesh  and  blood.  That 
is,  however,  incorrect,  for  there  is  something  more  in  flesh 
and  blood  than  material  substance.  There  is  the  power 
of  life  which  departs  at  death,  and  there  is  nourishment, 
which  is  transformed  into  poisonous  tendencies  soon  after 
death.  Flesh  is  of  value  in  sacrifice  because  of  its  nourishing 
quality.  Bread  has  the  same  quality  to  a  lesser  degree. 
Blood  is  of  value  in  sacrifice  because  the  Scriptures  regard  it 
as  the  seat  of  life.  It  has  quickening  and  invigorating 
power,  and  therefore  is  used  not  only  in  sacrifice,  but  also 
in  ceremonies  of  purification  as  the  greatest  of  all  purifying 
agencies.  No  Church  holds  that  the  material  substance  of 
the  flesh  and  blood  of  the  Christ  of  the  cross  continued  in  his 
body  which  ascended  from  earth,  reigns  in  heaven  and  is 
present  in  the  Eucharist.  But  the  Church  in  all  ages  has 
held  that  the  substance  of  flesh  and  blood,  in  which  the  mate- 
rial properties  or  accidents  inhere,  persists  in  the  spiritual 
body  of  Christ  with  properties  suited  to  a  heavenly  state  of 
existence.  It  is  proper  to  name  this  spiritual  substance 
flesh  and  blood,  because  it  has  the  same  relation  to  the  spir- 
itual body  that  flesh  and  blood  have  to  the  natural  body;  be- 
cause there  is  unity  and  continuity  between  their  two  states 
of  existence;  and  because  they  have  the  same  effect  upon  the 
spiritual  nature  that  flesh  and  blood  have  upon  the  material 


288  CHURCH   UNITY 

nature — they  impart  life,  reinvigoration,  nourishment  and 
growth  to  the  children  of  God. 

The  presence  of  Christ  in  the  elements  is  therefore  a 
presence  of  spiritual  substance,  and  not  the  presence  of  mate- 
rial substance;  it  is  a  presence  entirely  independent  of  the 
laws  of  matter.  It  is  a  Christophanic  presence  using  sensi- 
ble forms  of  matter  merely  for  purposes  of  manifestation,  and 
of  mediating  the  transference  of  spiritual  substance  to  human 
beings — spiritual  natures,  indeed,  yet  clothed  with  material 
substance  and  under  the  dominion  of  sensible  forms,  and 
subject  to  the  laws  of  the  material  universe. 

From  this  point  of  view  we  may  see  that  the  differences 
of  opinion  as  to  the  relation  of  the  elements  of  bread  and 
wine  to  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  are  not  so  great  as 
they  appear.  The  Roman  Catholic  says  that  the  substance 
after  the  consecration  of  the  elements  is  the  substance  of  the 
body  of  Christ,  the  accidents  are  those  of  bread  and  wine. 
The  substance  of  the  body  of  Christ  there  present  has  none 
of  the  qualities  of  matter.  All  the  qualities  of  matter, 
weight,  impenetrability,  size,  shape,  locality,  magnitude; 
all  the  qualities  of  bread  and  wine  discernible  by  the  senses, 
of  sight,  touch,  smell  and  taste,  and  "the  quality  natural  to 
bread,  of  supporting  and  nourishing  the  body,"  ^  remain  in 
the  accidents.  And  these  "accidents  cannot  inhere  in  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,"  but  "in  a  manner  altogether 
superior  to  the  order  of  nature,  they  subsist  of  themselves, 
inhering  in  no  subject." 

The  Lutheran  says  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  in,  with  and 
under  the  forms  of  bread  and  wine.  The  Calvinist  says 
that  the  body  of  Christ  is  sacramentally  present  with  the 
elements  of  bread  and  wine.  The  chief  differences  are  those 
of  definition  and  disagreement  as  to  the  philosophical  dis- 
tinction of  substance  and  accidents,  rather  than  differences 
as  to  the  realities.  The  Roman  Catechism  distinguishes  the 
accidents  of  matter  even  more  carefully  from  the  body  of 
Christ  than  does  the  Lutheran,  although  not  so  sharply  as 
» Cat.  Rom.  II,  iv.  38, 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM  289 

the  Calvinist.  But  all  agree  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  sacra- 
mentally  present  with  the  elements,  and  all  agree  that  it  can 
only  be  spiritually  discerned.  All  agree  that  the  only  thing 
the  senses  can  detect,  the  only  properties  of  matter  present, 
are  those  of  bread  and  wine,  and  those  properties  nourish 
the  natural  man  at  the  same  time  that  the  body  of  Christ 
feeds  the  regenerate  man. 

5.   Christophanic  Presence 

We  may  understand  still  better  the  results  we  have  thus 
far  attained,  if  we  compare  the  three  chief  examples  of  sacra- 
mental communion  reported  in  Holy  Scripture  :  the  com- 
munion of  the  Church  of  Corinth;  the  communion  of  the 
Twelve  at  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the  upper 
room  of  Jerusalem  on  the  night  of  the  betrayal,  reported  in 
the  Gospels;  and  the  communion  of  the  Israelites  in  the 
wilderness;  all  alike  reported  by  St.  Paul  in  the  first  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians.  One  of  the  most  eminent  Roman 
Catholic  theologians  in  Rome  agreed  with  me  that  we  must 
find  a  doctrine  of  Eucharistic  presence  that  would  satisfy 
the  conditions  of  these  three  historic  communions. 

The  eucharistic  communion  of  the  Church  of  Corinth, 
like  all  other  Eucharists  subsequent  to  the  resurrection  of 
our  Lord,  is  a  feeding  upon  the  risen  and  glorified  body  of 
Christ.  His  heavenly  body,  the  very  one  enthroned  at  the 
right  hand  of  the  Father,  is  given  by  the  great  High  Priest, 
Christ  himself,  to  his  people  at  his  table.  The  eucharistic 
communion  of  the  apostles  at  the  institution  of  the  Eucharist 
was  somewhat  different.  They  fed  upon  the  body  of  Christ 
before  it  was  crucified,  and  so,  before  it  was  raised  from 
the  dead  and  glorified. 

Bishop  Gore^  takes  the  position  that  this  institution  of  the 
Eucharist  was  an  anticipation  of  glory,  akin  to  the  Trans- 
figuration. This  opinion  is  due  to  a  too  narrow  view  of 
the  Eucharist,  as  only  a  communion  in  the  spiritual  body 
of  the  risen  and  glorified  Christ.  If  the  original  communion 
»  Body  of  Christ,  p.  312. 


290  CHURCH  UNITY 

at  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  only  an  antic- 
ipatory one,  it  was  not  real  but  ideal.  How,  then,  could  it 
have  been  a  real  institution?  How  could  it  have  been  an 
eating  of  a  real  covenant  sacrifice?  Unless  it  was  a  real 
communion,  the  Eucharist  was  not  instituted  by  our  Lord 
himself  on  the  night  of  his  betrayal,  but  only  represented 
and  prefigured  by  him.  This  theory  seems  to  destroy  the 
Eucharist,  in  so  far  as  it  is  the  great  initial  sacrifice  of  the 
New  Covenant. 

On  the  night  in  which  he  wels  betrayed,  our  Lord,  reclining 
at  the  head  of  the  table,  gives  his  body  and  blood  to  the  apostles 
in  connection  with  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine.  If  this 
is  true,  then  the  high  priesthood  of  Christ  did  not  originate 
when  he  ascended  into  heaven  to  the  heavenly  altar,  and  he 
did  not  first  become  the  victim  when  he  suffered  on  the  cross. 
John  the  Baptist,  indeed,  saw  in  Jesus  at  his  baptism  "the 
Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  worid  " ;  ^  and 
the  Baptism  itself  was  at  the  same  time  a  recognition  and  a 
consecration  of  Jesus  as  the  holy  victim  and  the  high  priest, 
as  well  as  prophet  and  king  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  Ac- 
cordingly, Mohler,  the  great  Roman  Catholic  controversial- 
ist, says  that 

His  whole  life  on  earth — his  ministry  and  his  sufferings,  as  well  as  his 
perpetual  condescension  to  our  infirmity  in  the  Eucharist — constitute 
one  great  sacrificial  act,  one  mighty  action,  undertaken  out  of  love  for 
us,  and  expiatory  of  our  sins,  consisting,  indeed,  of  various  individual 
parts,  yet  so  that  none  of  itself  is,  strictly  speaking,  the  sacrifice.  In 
each  particular  part  the  whole  recurs,  yet  without  these  parts  the  whole 
cannot  be  conceived.     {Symbolik,  S.  308.) 

F.  C.  Baur,  his  great  antagonist,  says: 

There  lies  no  ground  for  a  difference  between  Protestants  and  Cath- 
olics, and  it  can  only  be  regarded  as  a  peculiarity  of  expression,  if  the 
Catholic  prefers  to  name  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  a  sacramental  sacrifice,  in  order  to  indicate  thereby  its 
connection  with  the  great  act  of  sacrifice  in  his  incarnation  and  humilia- 
tion in  the  flesh.     {Katholidsmus  und  ProtestantismuSf  S.  400.) 

*  John  i.  29. 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM  291 

It  is,  indeed,  necessary  for  Catholics  and  Protestants  to 
take  this  more  comprehensive  position,  in  which  they  can 
agree,  in  order  to  understand  the  original  institution  of  the 
Eucharist. 

The  Twelve  ate  the  lamb  about  to  be  slain,  as  the  post- 
resurrection  disciples  ate  the  lamb  that  had  been  slain.  That 
which  is  common  to  both  eatings  is  the  essential  body  of 
Christ,  and  not  anything  that  was  special  to  either  of  his  states 
of  existence.  The  body  of  Christ  which  the  apostles  ate,  at 
the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  was  not  that  body  which 
they  saw  reclining  at  the  head  of  the  table;  it  was  a  body 
which  might  in  some  way  separate  itself  from  that  material 
body,  and  in  their  very  presence,  undiscerned  by  their  senses, 
connect  itself  sacramentally  with  the  bread  and  wine  which 
the  Lord  distributed  to  them.  If,  now,  the  Lord  could  give 
his  body  to  them  to  eat,  without  in  any  way  changing  his 
material  body  in  their  full  vision,  he  certainly  may  give  his 
body  to  his  people  after  his  resurrection,  without  in  any  way 
changing  his  glorified  body  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father. 
He  who  was  transfigured  before  his  apostles  on  the  mountain 
of  Galilee,  by  some  similar  process  converted  the  bread  and 
the  wine,  which  he  distributed  to  them,  into  his  own  body  and 
blood. 

We  have,  however,  a  third,  and  in  some  respects  a  still 
more  instructive,  instance  of  sacramental  communion.  St. 
Paul  tells  the  Corinthians: 

For  I  would  not,  brethren,  have  you  ignorant,  how  that  our  fathers 
were  all  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the  sea;  and  were  all 
baptized  into  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea;  and  did  all  eat  the 
same  spiritual  meat;  and  did  all  drink  the  same  spiritual  drink;  for  they 
drank  of  a  spiritual  rock  that  followed  them:  and  the  rock  was  Christ. 
(I  Cor.  X.  1-4.) 

Now  it  is  evident  that  St.  Paul  here  identifies  the  Pillar 
of  cloud  and  fire,  the  continuous  theophany  of  the  Exodus, 
with  the  pre-existent  Christ.  He  also  represents  that  the 
manna,  the  bread  from  heaven,  was  not  only  material  meat, 
but  spiritual  meat;   and  that  the  water  from  the  rock  was 


292  CHURCH  UNITY 

not  only  material  water,  but  spiritual  drink;  and  that  that 
spiritual  meat  and  drink  was  Christ.  In  other  words,  the 
Israelites  in  the  wilderness,  by  eating  of  the  manna  and 
drinking  of  the  water  from  the  rock,  ate  and  drank  the  pre- 
existing theophanic  Christ.^  Here  we  have  the  theophanic 
Christ,  appearing  in  the  sky  above  them  a^  cloud  by  day  and 
fire  by  night,  giving  to  the  people  on  the  earth  his  theophanic 
substance  to  eat  and  to  drink. 

The  sacramental  union  of  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine 
or  water  with  the  theophanic  substance  of  Christ  is  the  com- 
mon feature  in  these  three  instances:  the  theophanic  sub- 
stance of  the  pre-existent  Christ  before  the  Incarnation; 
the  Christophanic  substance  of  the  glorified  Christ  after  the 
Resurrection;  the  Christophanic  substance  of  the  incarnate 
Christ  in  his  earthly  state.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  it  is 
the  Christophanic  substance  which  is  the  common  feature 
and  is  the  essential  thing  in  the  sacramental  union;  and  it 
is  just  this  thing  that  the  history  of  Biblical  Theophanies 
and  Christophanies  helps  us  to  understand  in  connection 
with  the  elements;  for  in  these  varied  Theophanies,  which  are 
all  really  Christophanies,  there  is  a  real  substantial  presence 
of  Christ  in  sensible  forms  for  the  very  purpose  of  grace. 

St.  Paul,  in  this  incident  of  the  sacramental  communion  of 
Israel  in  the  pre-existent  Christ,  raises  our  minds  to  higher 
and  broader  conceptions  of  the  whole  problem,  for  we  must, 
from  this  point  of  view,  think  that  Christ  did  not  first  become 
a  victim  and  priest  when  he  was  recognised  by  God  and  con- 
secrated at  his  baptism.  He  was  already  priest  and  victim 
in  his  pre-existent  state.  The  Apocalypse  tells  of  the  "  Lamb 
that  hath  been  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world '*;^ 
and  St.  Peter  says  that  we  were  redeemed 

with  precious  blood  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and  without  spot 
[even  the  blood]  of  Christ:  who  was  foreknown,  indeed,  before  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world,  but  was  manifested  at  the  end  of  the  times.  (I  Peter 
i.  18-20.) 

»  Ex.  xvi.-xvii.;  xl.  34-38;  Nu.  xx.  1-13;  Ps.  cv.  39-41. 
"  Rev.  xiii.  8. 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  SYSTEM  293 

As  my  teacher  and  friend,  Roswell  D.  Hitchcock,  said: 

The  agony  of  God  over  human  sin  is  the  Lamb  slain  from  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world.  God  Himself  atones,  to  Himself  atones;  and  so, 
atonement  is  both  eternal  and  divine.     {Eternal  Atonement,  p.  11.) 

Christ  as  the  son  of  God,  the  archetypal  man,*  was  the 
divinely  appointed  victim  from  all  eternity,  and  as  such  the 
accepted  sacrifice,  the  pledge,  the  guarantee  of  the  eventual 
complete  redemption  of  mankind.  And  so  in  the  sacrificial 
system  of  the  Old  Testament  there  was  a  feeding  upon  Christ, 
unconscious,  it  is  true,  but  none  the  less  real;  as  Israel  was 
in  preparation  for  the  advent  of  the  victim  clothed  in  flesh, 
who  passed  through  the  experience  of  an  earthly  sacrificial  vic- 
tim, that  all  mankind  might  realise,  as  they  could  in  no  other 
way,  the  real  significance  of  sacrifice  in  a  suffering  and  glori- 
fied Saviour.  And  so  the  ancient  thought  of  the  Jewish 
philosopher,  Philo,  is  also  true,  that  the  Logos  in  his  very 
being,  as  the  mediator  between  God  and  the  creature,  was 
essentially  the  one,  eternal  high  priest,  ever  presenting  him- 
self as  the  world's  gift  to  God,  and  also  himself  as  God's 
gift  to  the  world. 

It  is  also  true  that  the  real  altar  and  temple  have  always 
been  in  heaven  in  the  immediate  presence  of  God  in  Christ 
himself;  and  the  ancient  Scriptures  are  strictly  true  when 
they  state  that  both  tabernacle  and  temple  and  all  their 
sacred  places  and  furniture  were  constructed  after  heavenly 
models.^  Their  purpose  was  to  interpret  and  make  men 
realise  the  worth  of  the  heavenly  originals.  And  so  Jesus 
Christ,  as  the  one  mediator  between  God  and  man,  is  al- 
ways, as  pre-existent,  as  ministering  on  earth,  and  as  the 
risen  and  glorified  redeemer,  the  one  everlasting,  everliving 
Priest-King,  and  the  one  perfect  sacrifice,  and  the  one  com- 
prehensive altar  and  temple,  all  in  one  personal,  all-perfect 
Being.  In  all  ages  he  was  mediating  as  priest  and  sacrifice, 
sometimes  manifesting  himself  in  sensuous  forms  of  Theoph- 
any,  but  always  operative  whether  discerned  or  not;   in  the 

»  I  Cor.  xi.3.  »  Ex.  xxv.  40;   1  Chr.  xxviii.  11-19. 


294  CHURCH  UNITY 

midst  of  the  world's  history  he  became  incarnate  to  identify 
himself  more  closely  with  man  and  nature;  then  passing 
through  the  experience  of  human  life  and  death,  he  glorified 
human  nature;  and  henceforth  mediates  as  priest  and  sacri- 
fice, as  the  God  man,  manifesting  himself  in  Christophanies, 
but  always  again  operative  whether  discerned  or  not.  And 
the  chief  manifestation  of  himself  is  ever  in  the  Holy  Com- 
munion, which  may  be  regarded  as  Christophanic  in  char- 
acter, and,  in  a  sense,  a  perpetuation  of  the  Incarnation  in 
the  life  and  experience  of  the  Church. 


IV.    THE  EFFECT  OF  THE  SACRAMENTS  UPON  THOSE  WHO 
USE  THEM 

The  questions  already  considered  cannot  be  entirely 
answered,  until  we  have  studied  the  final  question  as  to  the 
effect  of  the  Sacraments  upon  those  who  use  them.  Here 
again,  for  lack  of  space,  we  must  confine  ourselves  to  the 
Holy  Eucharist.  We  have  seen  that  it  is  by  eating  and  drink- 
ing the  elements  of  bread  and  wine  that  the  effects  of  this 
most  holy  Sacrifice  are  produced  in  the  communicants.  The 
differences  in  the  Christian  Churches  are  very  great  just 
here. 

The  serious  question  is,  whether  when  we  take  the  sacred 
elements  into  the  mouth,  and  into  the  stomach,  we  also  take 
with  them  the  body  of  Christ.  Involved  in  this  is  the  further 
question,  whether  unbelievers  also  partake,  and  if  so,  in  what 
sense.  The  Lutheran,  Roman  Catholic,  Greek,  and  Oriental 
Churches  aflSrm,  but  the  Calvinists  deny  these  things.  We 
shall  not,  however,  expend  our  strength  upon  this  side  of 
the  question,  because  it  leads  to  no  solution  of  the  difficulties 
of  the  problem,  and  the  only  interest  any  one  has  in  maintain- 
ing it  is  its  supposed  logical  necessity.  The  real  question 
is  how  we  may  eat  and  drink  the  spiritual  substance  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ.  All  admit  that  it  is  not  a  sensu- 
ous eating  and  drinking,  with  taste,  mastication  and  di- 


THE   SACRAMENTAL    SYSTEM  295 

gestion.  These  sensuous  acts  have  to  do  only  with  the 
species  or  the  elements,  not  the  body  of  Christ.  What,  then, 
is  the  nature  of  this  eating  and  drinking  if  it  is  not  sensuous  ? 
It  can  only  be  a  spiritual  eating,  because  the  substance  is 
spiritual  substance.  The  Roman  Catholics  and  Lutherans 
insist  upon  a  real  eating  and  drinking,  carefully  to  be  dis- 
tinguished from  faith.  The  Calvinists,  when  they  assert  that 
the  eating  is  by  faith,  do  yet,  as  we  have  seen,  hold  that  the 
eating  is  action  additional  to  faith.  ^ 

The  Ecstatic  State 

As  we  have  used  the  Theophany  to  guide  us  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  presence,  so  we  may  use  the  ecstatic  state  to  guide  us  to 
the  nature  of  the  eating.  In  the  ecstatic  state  men  lose  con- 
sciousness of  the  material  world  about  them  and  become 
conscious  of  spiritual  realities.  This  is,  in  a  measure,  true 
also  of  the  dream  and  of  all  hypnotic  conditions.  In  the 
ecstatic  state  the  sensible  nature  is  no  longer  operative,  but 
the  imagination  and  the  memory  are  chiefly  at  work;  and 
yet  we  see  and  hear,  taste  and  smell,  and  touch  as  distinctly, 
and  often  more  so,  than  we  do  with  our  sensible  nature.  Is 
this  all  the  work  of  the  imagination  or  fancy  ?  Is  it  illusion 
or  delusion  ?  or  is  there  substantial  reality  in  this  experience  ? 
We  may  distinguish  in  this  experience,  which  is  now  com- 
monly summed  up  under  the  term  suggestion,  between  self- 
suggestion  and  suggestion  by  others  than  ourselves,  for  both 
of  these  are  matters  of  common  experience.  It  is  evident 
that,  while  auto-suggestion  plays  an  important  part  in 
dreams,  the  ecstatic  state  and  other  hypnotic  conditions,  there 
are  many  instances  in  which  suggestion  from  others  than  our- 
selves also  plays  an  important  part.  It  is  the  latter  alone 
with  which  we  now  have  to  do. 

In  the  ecstatic  state  men  see  persons  and  things,  hear  words 
and  sounds,  taste  and  smell  and  touch  various  objects. 
These  objects,  discerned  in  the  ecstatic  condition,  are  usually 
»  See  pp.  265  /. 


296  CHURCH  UNITY 

not  material  things,  because  there  is  no  actual  contact  of  the 
senses  with  matter;  but  they  are  the  substances  of  things. 
This  is  the  state  in  which  much  of  ancient  prophecy  was 
received.  It  is  the  state  into  which  Jesus  and  St.  Peter  and 
St.  Paul,  and  after  them  a  multitude  of  holy  men  and  women 
in  all  ages,  have  not  infrequently  passed  when  they  would  be- 
come absorbed  in  spiritual  realities,  undisturbed  by  the  af- 
fairs of  ordinary  life.  The  ecstatic  state  and  the  Christoph- 
any  are  not  infrequently  combined  in  the  Scriptures.  Indeed, 
the  ecstatic  state  seems  to  be  the  most  appropriate  condition 
in  which  a  man  may  receive  Theophanies.  Such  Theophanies 
should  not  be  regarded  as  unreal  because  given  to  men  in  the 
ecstatic  condition.  They  may  be  all  the  more  real,  in  that 
such  men  may  be  able  to  discern  them  so  much  the  better 
in  that  state.  Certainly,  the  Biblical  worthies  who  enjoyed 
this  high  privilege  regarded  them  as  real,  and  represented 
them  as  realities.  We  cannot  think  that  God  would  per- 
mit the  leaders  of  His  religion  to  be  so  greatly  deceived.  If 
the  presence  in  the  Holy  Communion  is  essentially  Chris- 
tophanic,  the  experience  of  enjoying  that  presence  may  be 
ecstatic. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  ecstatic  state  has  often  been 
enjoyed  by  holy  men  and  women  at  the  Eucharist;  and  in 
such  a  state  we  should  not  be  surprised  if  they  have  seen 
the  Lord  in  some  of  the  many  forms  of  his  manifestation. 
But  this  is  not  the  usual  experience,  and  is  not  to  be  regarded 
as  a  normal  one.  We  mention  it  here  in  order  that  it  may 
help  to  understand  what  is  meant  by  eating  and  drinking  by 
the  spiritual  nature,  as  something  really  distinct  from  faith, 
though  dependent  upon  it.  In  the  ecstatic  state,  the  sub- 
conscious nature  comes  into  consciousness,  and  the  ordi- 
nary conscious  nature  becomes  unconscious.  But  the  sub- 
conscious nature  continues  to  exist  even  if  it  be  subconscious, 
and  it  continues  its  activity  even  if  we  are  not  conscious  of 
it.  Therefore,  we  may  say,  that  at  the  Holy  Communion  there 
may  be  a  subconscious  feeding  upon  Christ  in  the  elements, 
even  if  we  are  not  conscious  of  that  feeding,  except  so  far  as 


THE   SACRAMENTAL   SYSTEM  297 

the  exercise  of  faith  and  the  religious  memory  and  imagina- 
tion are  concerned;  and  so  the  blessed  effects  of  the  Holy 
Communion  may  be  unconsciously  enjoyed  even  by  the  most 
ignorant.  The  presence  of  Christ  and  his  benefits  do  not 
depend  upon  the  measure  of  our  consciousness  of  them.  It 
is  an  objective  presence  in  the  elements  which  communicates 
itself  to  us  by  means  of  our  faith,  and  feeds  us  with  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ,  even  if  we  are  not  conscious  of  the  exact 
way  in  which  we  are  fed. 

In  that  respect  we  are  simply  babes  in  Christ;  and,  in  fact, 
the  Roman  Catholic,  Lutheran  and  Calvinist,  however 
different  their  theories  and  explanations  may  be,  when  they 
take  the  elements  of  the  Holy  Communion  into  the  mouth, 
do  not  practically  differ  in  their  religious  experience. 

The  Preservation  of  Body  and  Soid 

Whatever  may  be  the  opinion  of  the  Churches  as  to  the 
nature  of  the  feeding,  they  agree,  Lutheran  and  Calvinist, 
Greek  and  Roman,  that  the  feeding  upon  Christ  in  the 
Eucharist  is  not  simply  a  benefit  to  the  soul  of  man,  but  also 
to  his  body.  They  all  agree  that  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  therein  partaken  "preserve  the  body  and  soul  unto 
everlasting  life." 

Calvin  says; 

Christ  is  obtained  not  only  when  we  believe  that  he  was  made  an 
offering  for  us,  but  when  he  dwells  in  us,  when  he  is  one  with  us,  when 
we  are  members  of  his  flesh  (Eph.  vi.  30),  when,  in  fine,  we  are  incorpo- 
rated with  him,  so  to  speak  in  our  life  and  substance.  For  he  does  not 
simply  present  to  us  the  benefits  of  his  death  and  resurrection,  but  the 
very  body  in  which  he  suffered  and  rose  again.  (Com.  on  I  Cor. 
xi.  24-26.) 

And  at  the  Conference  of  Poissy  in  1561,  Beza,  Peter 
Martyr  and  other  Protestant  representatives  agreed  with 
the  Roman  Catholic  representatives  in  this  common  platform : 

We  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  in  the  Holy  Supper  gives  us  and  im- 
parts truly  the  susbtance  of  his  body  and  blood  through  the  operation  of 


298  CHURCH  UNITY 

the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  we  take  and  eat  sacramentally  and  by  faith 
this  proper  body  that  died  for  us,  in  order  to  become  bone  of  his  bone, 
and  flesh  of  his  flesh,  and  thereby  receive  life.  {Histoire  critique  des 
projets  formes  depuis  tr&is  cent  ans  four  la  Reunion  des  Communions, 
p.  184.) 

There  is,  indeed,  in  mankind  as  in  Christ  a  body,  whose 
form  and  substance  are  not  dependent  upon  the  material 
of  which  it  may  be  composed,  which  will  continue  to  exist 
after  this  material  body  becomes  dust,  in  a  spiritual  body 
suited  to  the  intermediate  state,  and  in  the  resurrection  body 
suited  to  the  final  state.  The  form  and  essential  substance 
of  this  body  remain  always  the  same,  the  temporary  material 
of  which  it  may  be  composed  depending  upon  the  circum- 
stances and  the  conditions  of  its  state  of  existence.  This  is 
the  body  that  underlies  our  sensuous  body,  and  which  alone 
is  capable  of  transformation  into  the  spiritual,  incorruptible, 
heavenly  and  glorious  body  with  which  we  shall  be  clothed 
in  the  future  state.  It  is  this  body  whose  appetite  can  only 
be  satisfied  with  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  It  is 
this  body  which  feeds  upon  him  in  the  Holy  Communion. 
It  is  this  body  which  is  thereby  assimilated  to  his  heavenly 
body  and  is  preserved  unto  everlasting  life. 


CHURCH  AND  CREED 

Church  and  Creed  were  born  together.  The  Creed  is  es- 
sentially a  confession  of  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Messiah 
and  Saviour  of  men.  St.  Peter  may  be  said  to  have  uttered 
the  first  Christian  creed  when  he  said:  "Thou  art  the  Christ, 
the  son  of  the  living  God."^  On  this  account  he  was  named 
by  the  Messiah  the  rock  of  the  Church.  The  first  confessor 
was  given  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  creed  was 
at  first  that  confession  of  faith  in  the  Messiah  which  was 
necessary  to  Christian  baptism  and  to  participation  in  the 
supper  of  the  Lord  in  the  Church.  The  apostolic  commis- 
sion, "  Go  ye  therefore  and  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations, 
baptising  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son 
and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"^  gave  the  outline  of  the  Trinitarian 
Creed:  "I  believe  in  the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Spirit." 

So  soon  as  the  Church  was  organised,  and  provision  was 
made  for  the  training  of  converts  in  preparation  for  the  Sacra- 
ments, this  simple  outline  of  the  creed  was  enlarged,  so  as  to 
embrace  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  Christian  religion  as 
conceived  by  the  ancient  Church.  This  enlargement  of  the 
creed  was  made  independently  in  the  different  churches  es- 
tablished in  the  provinces  and  cities  of  the  Roman  Empire; 
but  gradually  a  consensus  was  attained,  such  as  we  find  in 
the  so-called  Apostles'  Creed. 

I.  THE  APOSTLES'  CREED 

The  Apostles'  Creed  was  so  named,  not  because  of  the 
legend  that  it  was  composed  by  the  apostles,  as  some  have 
supposed,  but  because,  like  the  Didache,  the  Didascaliay  and 
Mt.  xvi.,  16.  »Mt.  xxviii.  19.     See  pp.  102  /. 

299 


300 


CHURCH  UNITY 


the  Constitution  of  the  Apostles,  it  was  supposed  to  give  the 
apostolic  tradition  of  the  Church.  We  have  to  distinguish 
a  gradual  growth  of  the  Creed  from  its  earlier  forms  to  its 
present  accepted  form  as  used  in  the  Western  Churches. 
The  earliest  form  thus  far  known  is  the  old  Roman  Creed,  of 
the  middle  of  the  second  century,  chiefly  attested  by  Irenaeus 
and  Tertullian.  We  then  have  a  revised  form  of  the  middle 
of  the  fourth  century,  chiefly  attested  by  Rufinus  and  Mar- 
cellus  of  Ancyra.  Several  later  forms  may  be  distinguished 
before  the  present  stereotyped  form  came  into  universal 
use  in  the  West.  I  shall  place  the  earliest  and  latest  forms 
side  by  side  for  comparison.  There  is  some  difference  of 
opinion  as  to  the  precise  words  of  the  old  Roman  form.  I 
can  only  give  that  form  which  seems  to  me  the  earliest  yet 
attainable,  as  the  results  of  my  own  investigations,  fully 
explained  in  my  unpublished  lectures. 


I  BELIEVE 


Earliest  form 

1.  In  one  God,  the  Father,  Al- 

mighty; 

2.  And  in  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son 

of  God,  our  Lord; 

3.  The  one  born  of  Mary  the 

Virgin; 

4.  The  one  under  Pontius  Pi- 

late crucified  and  buried; 

5.  On  the  third  day  risen  from 

the  dead, 

6.  Ascended  into  heaven, 

7.  And  seated  on  the  right  hand 

of  the  Father; 

8.  Thence   he   shall   come   to 

judge  the  quick  and  the 
dead, 


Present  form 


3. 


In  God,  the  Father,  Al- 
mighty, maker  of  heaven 
and  earth; 

And  in  Jesus  Christ,  His  only 
Son,  our  Lord; 

Who  was  conceived  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the 
Virgin  Mary 

4.  Suffered  under  Pontius  Pi- 

late, was  crucified,  dead, 
and  buried; 

5.  He   descended   into   Hades, 

the  third  day  he  rose  again 
from  the  dead; 

6.  And  ascended  into  heaven, 

7.  And  sitteth  on  the  right  hand 

of  God,   the  Father,  Al- 
mighty; 
From  thence  he  shall  come  to 
judge  the  quick  and  the 
dead. 


8, 


CHURCH  AND  CREED  301 

9.  And  in  the  Holy  Ghost;  9.  And  I  believe  in  the  Holy 

Ghost, 

10.  The  Holy  Church,  10.  The  Holy  Catholic  Church, 

the  communion  of  saints, 

11.  The  forgiveness  of  sins,  11.  The  forgiveness  of  sins, 

12.  The    resurrection    of    the  12.  The  resurrection  of  the  body, 

flesh.  and  the  life  everlasting. 

II.  THE  NICENE  CREED 

The  Nicene  Creed  also  has  passed  through  several  re- 
visions. The  original  Nicene  Creed  was  prepared  by  the 
Council  of  Nice  in  325.  Constantine,  the  first  Christian 
emperor,  summoned  it.  It  was  composed  of  318  bishops, 
all  Eastern  except  Hosius,  of  Corduba,  in  Spain.  It  was 
called  to  settle  the  Arian  controversy.  When  the  Council 
assembled  it  was  found  that  there  were  few  that  sympathised 
with  Arius.  But  a  considerable  number,  under  the  leader- 
ship of  Eusebius  of  Csesarea,  took  an  intermediate  position 
between  the  two  parties  and  wished  no  further  definition  of 
the  Faith  than  that  contained  in  the  local  Creeds.  However, 
the  majority  were  zealous  against  the  Arians  and  prepared  for 
extreme  measures.  Eusebius  presented  to  the  Council  a  Creed 
which,  he  said,  "he  had  learned  as  a  catechumen,  professed 
it  at  his  baptism,  taught  it  in  turn  as  presbyter  and  bishop, 
and  that  it  was  derived  from  our  Lord's  baptismal  formula."^ 

The  Council  took  this  Creed  as  satisfactory  so  far  as  it  went, 
and  made  it  the  basis  for  its  formula,  but  added  several  phrases 
aimed  against  the  Arians,  which  were  not  altogether  satis- 
factory to  the  Eusebians,  who,  however,  managed  to  interpret 
them  in  their  own  sense. 

The  battle  with  Arianism  continued  throughout  the  cen- 
tury with  great  violence  and  varying  fortunes.  Although 
the  Roman  Church  was  not  represented  at  Nice,  it  at  once 
adopted  its  formula  and  maintained  its  position  through 
thick  and  thin.  In  the  East,  the  intermediate  party  was 
strong,  especially  in  Syria.  At  Antioch  a  number  of  pro- 
vincial councils  were  held,  the  most  important  of  which  was 
^  Epistle  to  the  people  of  Caesarea, 


302  CHURCH  UNITY 

the  Council  of  the  Dedication,  in  341,  which  adopted  the 
Lucian  Creed,  which  it  was  claimed  was  the  Creed  of  Antioch 
composed  by  the  martyr  Lucian  and  based  upon  an  older 
baptismal  formula.  The  intermediate  party  were  eager  to 
aflSrm  the  older  local  Creeds  over  against  the  new  Creed  of 
Nice.  The  intermediate  party  grew  stronger  and  stronger 
until  at  last  they  made  an  alliance  with  the  stricter  adherents 
of  the  Nicene  formula,  and  the  result  was  the  Constantino- 
politan  Creed. 

The  Council  of  Constantinople  was  convoked  by  the  Em- 
peror Theodosius  in  381  and  composed  of  150  bishops,  all 
Eastern.  Their  first  canon  readopted  the  Nicene  Creed 
and  condemned  the  Arians.  The  Constantinopolitan  Creed 
is  in  the  present  text  of  the  Acts  of  that  Council,  but  it  is  not 
known  how  it  came  there.  The-  Council  of  Chalcedon 
definitely  asserts  that  the  Constantinopolitan  Creed  was  the 
symbol  of  the  150.  It  is  altogether  probable,  therefore,  that 
in  some  sense  it  was  before  that  Council  and  approved  by 
that  Council,  although  it  is  improbable  that  it  was  formally 
adopted,  for  the  Council  seems  to  have  simply  reaffirmed  the 
Nicene  Creed. 

The  situation  at  Nice  was  repeated.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem, 
whose  orthodoxy  was  questioned  by  some,  presented  to  the 
Council  of  Constantinople  the  Creed  of  the  Church  of  Jeru- 
salem, which  had  revised  the  older  Creed  of  that  Church  by 
the  insertion  of  the  Nicene  formula,  with  the  exception  of  a 
few  phrases.  This  revised  Creed  of  Jerusalem  was  well 
known  to  Epiphanius  who  gives  it  in  374  in  his  work, 
6  A7/co/3ft)T09.  He  had  brought  it  with  him  from  Jerusalem, 
in  the  vicinity  of  which  he  had  long  lived  till  367,  when  he 
became  bishop  in  Cyprus. 

However  the  mystery  of  its  connection  with  the  Council 
of  Constantinople  may  be  explained,  it  is  certain  that  this 
Creed,  known  as  the  Constantinopolitan,  is  really  a  com- 
bination of  the  older  baptismal  Creed  of  Jerusalem  with  the 
Nicene  Creed,  and  that  it  was  recognised  by  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  as  the  symbol  of  the  150  bishops  of  Constantinople, 


CHURCH  AND  CREED  303 

and  that  it  was  given  oecumenical  authority  by  its  adoption 
by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon;  and  so  being  an  expansion  of 
the  Nicene  Creed  and  containing  several  important  state- 
ments of  the  Faith,  not  in  the  Nicene  Creed  but  in  the  old 
Roman  Creed  and  other  baptismal  Creeds,  it  eventually  took 
the  place  of  the  original  Nicene  Creed,  and  became  itself  in 
use  the  (Ecumenical  Nicene  Creed. 

The  received  form  of  the  Western  Church  differs  from  the 
original  and  Eastern  forms  of  the  Constantinopolitan,  by 
the  addition  to  the  Procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  the 
Father,  of  "and  the  Son;"  and  by  the  restoration  from  the 
original  Nicene  Creed  of  the  clause,  "God  of  God."  Both 
of  these  appear  for  the  first  time  in  the  recital  of  the  Creed  at 
the  Council  of  Toledo  in  589,  although  they  are  found  in 
earlier  documents.  The  phrase  "and  of  the  Son  "  probably 
came  into  the  Creed  from  the  original  form  of  the  so-called 
Athanasian  Creed,  which  originated  in  Gaul  and  which  at- 
tained a  high  degree  of  authority  in  the  West,  but  not  in  the 
East.  These  additions,  however  important  they  may  be,  can 
hardly  be  regarded  as  having  oecumenical  authority,  and  ought 
to  be  removed  in  the  interest  of  the  Reunion  of  Christendom. 

The  Athanasian  Creed  is  orthodox  in  doctrine,  but  it  is 
too  dogmatic  in  form  and  language  for  a  Creed,  and  its 
damnatory  phrases  are  offensive  to  many  modern  Christians. 
It  should  no  longer  be  used  in  public  worship. 

The  original  Nicene  Creed  and  the  later  Constantino- 
politan are  given  below,  the  differences  being  indicated  by 
italics. 

WE  BELIEVE 

Nicene  Creed  Constantinopolitan  Creed 

1.  In  one  God,  the  Father,  Al-  1.  In  one  God  the  Father  Al- 

mighty,    maker    of    all  mighty,  maker  of  heaven 

things  visible  and  invisi-  and  earth  and  of  all  things 

ble;  visible  and  invisible; 

2.  And  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  2.  And  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 

the  Son  of  God,  begotten  the,  only  begotten,  Son  of 

of  the  Father,  the  only  be-  God,  begotten  of  the  Fath- 


304 


CHURCH  UNITY 


gotten;  thai  is,  of  the  es- 
sence of  the  Father,  God  of 
God,  Light  of  Light,  very 
God  of  very  God,  begot- 
ten not  made,  being  of  one 
substance  with  the  Fath- 
er, by  whom  all  things 
were  made  both  in  heaven 
and  on  earth; 
3.  Who  for  us  men,  and  for  our 
salvation,  came  down  and 
was  incarnate,  and  was 
made  man, 


4.  He  suffered, 


5.  And  the  third  day  he  rose 

again, 

6.  Ascended  into  heaven. 


8.  From  thence  he  shall  come  to 
judge  the  quick  and  the 
dead; 


9.  And  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 


er  before  all  worlds,  Light 
of  Light,  very  God  of  very 
God,  begotten  not  made, 
being  of  one  substance 
with  the  Father,  by  whom 
all  things  were  made; 


3.  Who  for  us  men,  and  for  our 

salvation,  came  down  from 
heaven  and  was  incarnate 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  and  was 
made  man, 

4.  He  was  crucified  for  us  under 

Pontius  Pilate,  and  suf- 
fered, and  was  buried; 

5.  And  the  third  day  he  rose 

again  according  to  the 
Scriptures, 

6.  And  ascended  into  heaven, 

7.  And  sitteth  on  the  right  hand 

of  the  Father; 

8.  From  thence  he  shall  come 

again  with  glory,  to  judge 
the  quick  and  the  dead; 
whose  kingdom  shall  have 
no  end; 

9.  And  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the 

Lord,  and  Giver  of  Life, 
who  proceedeth  from  the 
Father,  who  with  the 
Father  and  the  Son  together 
is  worshipped  and  glori- 
fied, who  spake  by  the 
prophets; 

10.  In  one  Hdy  Catholic  and 
Apostolic  Church. 

IL  We  acknowledge  one  baptism, 
for  the  remission  of  sins. 

12.  We  look  for  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead  and  the  life  of  the 
world  to  come. 


CHURCH   AND   CREED  305 

The  Apostles*  Creed  has  been  a  baptismal  Creed  from  the 
beginning;  the  Nicene  Creed  is  a  conciliar  Creed,  an  official 
(Ecumenical  Creed.  Although  in  the  East  it  incorporated 
the  earlier  baptismal  Creed,  and  so  became  itself  a  baptismal 
Creed ;  it  is  more  properly  a  Creed  for  the  matured  Christian, 
and  has  been  used  in  the  East  as  well  as  in  the  West  as  most 
appropriate  for  the  Holy  Communion.  The  Apostles* 
Creed  was  a  Creed  the  acceptance  of  which  was  necessary  for 
baptism  and  for  incorporation  into  the  Church.  The  Nicene 
Creed  was  a  test  of  orthodoxy  and  necessary  for  full  com- 
munion in  the  Church. 

The  damnatory  clauses  of  the  Nicene  Creed  I  have  not 
given.  They  ought  never  to  have  been  used  with  the  Creed. 
They  may  be  appropriate  as  the  judgment  of  the  Council,  but 
they  are  not  proper  in  public  worship.  These  two  primitive 
Creeds  have  been  taken  into  the  Liturgies  of  the  Christian 
Church  and  are  a  part  of  the  public  worship  of  Christendom. 

The  House  of  Bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States,  and  the  Lambeth  Conference  of  the 
Bishops  of  the  Church  of  England  and  her  daughters,  did 
wisely  when  in  their  plan  for  the  reunion  of  Christendom  they 
proposed  these  two  liturgical  Creeds — "  the  Apostles*  Creed, 
as  the  baptismal  symbol,  and  the  Nicene  Creed  as  the  suffi- 
cient statement  of  the  Christian  faith.**  It  should  be  the 
aim  of  all  Christians  to  rally  about  this  position  as  the  essen- 
tial doctrinal  basis  of  Christendom.  These  two  Creeds  are 
suited  to  public  worship  in  form  and  in  substance.  Their 
language  is  chaste  and  beautiful,  they  are  devotional  and 
easily  become  choral.  The  Christian  world,  with  very  few 
exceptions,  heartily  unites  in  them,  and  in  the  one  harmonious 
Faith  realises  the  blessedness  of  "the  communion  of  saints.** 
The  later  decrees,  articles  and  confessions  of  the  Church  ex- 
press division  and  schism.  They  set  forth  doctrinal  varia- 
tions which  are  of  great  importance  in  the  science  of  Theology, 
but  which  are  not  essential  to  Christian  faith  and  life.  The 
formula  of  Chalcedon  and  the  pseudo-Athanasian  Creed  are 
accepted  by  the  great  body  of  orthodox  men  in  the  Christian 


306  CHURCH  UNITY 

Church,  but  both  of  them  have  been  severely  criticised  by 
devout  and  honoured  theologians.  What  they  have  added 
to  the  two  ancient  Creeds  has  not  tended  to  the  harmony 
of  Christendom.  The  Synod  of  Orange,  in  the  West,  decided 
for  a  mild  Augustianism,  but  this  and  the  later  decisions  of 
Popes  and  Councils  did  not  assume  creedal  forms. 

III.  SYMBOLS  OF  FAITH 

The  Church  of  Christ  for  1,500  years  lived  and  grew  and 
accomplished  its  greatest  triumphs,  destroying  the  ancient 
religions,  transforming  the  Greek,  Roman  and  Oriental 
civilisations,  winning  the  Celtic,  Germanic  and  Slavonic 
races  to  Christ,  without  any  other  Creeds  than  these.  But 
in  the  sixteenth  century  the  throes  of  liberty  and  reformation 
divided  the  Church,  and  large  numbers  of  decrees,  articles, 
catechisms  and  confessions  of  faith  were  framed  in  order  to 
define  the  differences  and  to  emphasise  the  discord  of  Chris- 
tendom. The  Greek  Church  produced  a  number  of  con- 
fessions and  catechisms  to  vindicate  its  orthodoxy  over  against 
Rome  and  Wittenberg.  The  Protestant  Churches  set  forth 
their  Faith  in  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  in  national  sym- 
bols. The  Roman  Catholic  Church  defined  the  orthodox 
Faith  in  the  canons  and  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent.  All 
the  variations  of  Protestantism  also  found  expression  in  con- 
fessions of  Faith  and  in  catechisms  of  various  kinds.  These 
modem  symbolical  documents  differ  greatly  in  form  and 
character  from  the  ancient  Creeds.  1.  They  are  not  so  much 
Creeds,  expressing  the  real  Faith  of  the  people  of  God,  as  sys- 
tems of  orthodox  doctrine  to  be  taught  by  theologians.  2. 
They  are  not  designed  for  the  worship  of  the  people  and  are 
therefore  not  in  the  liturgical  form.  They  are  for  instruction 
in  the  class-rooms;  catechisms  for  children,  larger  catechisms 
for  adults,  and  confessions  of  faith  for  the  ministry.  3.  They 
do  not  set  forth  in  plain  terms  the  essential  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity, but  in  learned  language  they  give  a  complete  exposi- 
tion of  Christian  doctrine,  or  else  a  full  statement  of  certain 


CHURCH  AND  CREED  307 

particular  doctrines  with  regard  to  which  there  has  been  di- 
vision and  debate. 

If  it  was  necessary  to  organise  the  various  Protestant 
national  Churches  of  Northern  Europe,  it  was  also  necessary 
that  these  Churches  should  define  their  Faith  in  symbolical 
books.  This  made  it  necessary  also  for  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  to  define  its  position  at  the  Council  of  Trent.  So 
also  when  the  non-conforming  Churches  separated  from  the 
national  Churches  there  was  the  same  historic  necessity  for 
additional  symbols  of  Faith.  These  symbolic  books  were 
designed  for  the  most  part  as  public  expressions  of  the  Faith 
of  the  national  Churches  or  the  denominations  using  them. 
They  were  not  ordinarily  intended  to  bind  the  consciences  of 
the  people,  or  even  to  compel  the  ministry  to  blind  subscrip- 
tion to  all  their  dogmatic  statements.  Subscription  to  Articles 
and  Confessions  was  forced  on  the  British  Churches  by  the 
authority  of  the  State,  in  the  interests  of  civil  order. ^  It  was 
not  a  natural  evolution  of  Protestantism  itself.  It  was  rather 
an  unwholesome  check  to  the  development  of  Protestantism 
in  its  doctrine  and  life.  The  symbolic  books  of  Protestant- 
ism culminated  on  the  Continent  of  Europe  in  the  Lutheran 
Form  of  Concord  and  in  the  Reformed  Canons  of  Dort.  The 
Form  of  Concord  became  a  form  of  discord  in  the  Lutheran 
Churches.     Dr.  Schaff  has  well  said : 

During  the  palmy  period  of  Lutheran  scholasticism,  the  Formula  of 
Concord  stood  in  high  authority  among  Lutherans,  and  was  even  re- 
garded as  inspired.  Its  first  centennial  [1680]  was  celebrated  with  con- 
siderable enthusiasm.  But  at  the  close  of  another  century  it  was  dead 
and  buried.    {Creeds  of  Christendom,  p.  336.) 

The  Canons  of  Dort  excluded  Arminianism  from  the  re- 
formed Churches,  and  made  a  division  which  has  continued 
until  the  present  time.     Dr.  Schaff  says: 

The  Canons  of  Dort  have  for  Calvinism  the  same  significance  which 
the  Formula  of  Concord  has  for  Lutheranism;  both  betray  a  very  high 
order  of  theological  ability  and  care.  Both  are  consistent  and  necessary 
developments.    Both  exerted  a  powerful  and  conserving  influence  in  these 

'See  p.  185, 


308  CHURCH   UNITY 

Churches.  Both  prepared  the  way  for  a  dry  scholasticism  which  runs 
into  subtle  abstractions,  and  resolves  the  living  soul  of  divinity  into  a 
skeleton  of  formulas  and  distinctions.  Both  consolidated  orthodoxy  at  the 
expense  of  freedom,  sanctioned  a  narrow  confessionalism,  and  widened 
the  breach  between  the  two  branches  of  the  Reformation.  (Ibid.,  p.  515.) 

The  Westminster  Confession  was  later  than  the  two  scholastic 
symbols  just  mentioned.  It  was  the  fruit  of  the  second 
Reformation  in  Great  Britain,  and  as  such,  full  of  life  and 
vigour  and  thereby  less  scholastic  than  the  Formula  of  Concord 
and  the  Canons  of  Dort.  But  in  some  respects,  it  is  having  a 
history  similar  to  that  of  these  two  older  symbols.  As  I 
have  elsewhere  said: 

It  was  a  splendid  plan  to  unite  all  parties  in  the  three  national  Churches 
of  Great  Britain  about  common  symbols.  But,  unfortunately,  the  king 
would  not  allow  the  episcopal  divines  to  attend,  and  the  Assembly,  with 
the  Long  Parliament,  soon  expelled  the  episcopal  party.  The  Presby- 
terian majority  was  intolerant  toward  the  Congregational  minority,  so 
that,  while  the  dissenting  brethren  struggled  heroically  for  their  views  in 
the  Assembly,  the  hostility  of  the  Presbyterian  party  became  so  great  that 
John  Goodwin  and  Henry  Burton,  the  only  two  pastors  of  London 
churches  who  were  Independents,  were  deprived  of  their  charges.  And 
so  the  Westminster  Symbols  became  the  banners  of  the  Presbyterian 
party.  What,  then,  do  we  see  at  the  present  time  ?  The  Westminster 
Confession  has  been  rejected  by  all  of  the  historical  Churches  of  England. 
It  is  held  only  by  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  England,  a  small  Church 
composed  chiefly  of  Scottish  and  Irish  families  residing  in  England.  In 
Ireland,  it  is  the  symbol  only  of  the  Presbyterians  of  the  North.  It  is  a 
national  confession  in  Scotland  alone.  It  is  used  only  by  Presbyterians 
in  America  and  the  colonies.  Nine-tenths  of  the  Protestants  of  Great 
Britain  and  America  do  not  adhere  to  the  Westminster  Confession.  It 
has  failed  in  its  design  of  displacing  the  Thirty-nine  Articles.  It  has  not 
become  the  one  Faith  of  Great  Britain.  This  is  the  verdict  of  history  on 
the  Westminster  Confession.    {How  Shall  We  Revise  f  pp.  4-5.) 

IV.  REVISION  OF  SYMBOLS 

The  revisions  of  the  Westminster  symbols,  and  of  the  terms 
of  subscription  thereto,  now  in  progress  in  the  Presbyterian 
Churches  of  the  world,  will  probably  eventually  result  in  casting 
them  aside  as  barriers  to  Church  Unity,  and  as  no  longer  suit- 
able expressions  of  the  Faith  and  Life  of  the  Church  in  our  day. 


CHURCH  AND  CREED  309 

Dogmatic  theology  is  in  a  state  of  dissolution  and  recon- 
struction. The  dogmatic  theologians  have  elaborated  Prot- 
estant dogma  far  beyond  the  later  symbolical  books  of  Prot- 
estantism. Thinking  men  are  going  back  to  the  symbols  of 
the  Reformation,  and  then  back  of  these  to  the  (Ecumenical 
Creeds,  and  then  still  further  back  to  the  theology  of  the 
Bible  itself.  The  theology  of  the  Bible  was  sadly  neglected 
by  the  scholastic  divines,  and  it  has  found  no  adequate  ex- 
pression in  the  symbolical  books  of  any  of  the  great  Churches 
of  Christendom.  They,  for  the  most  part,  pursued  false 
methods  of  exegesis.  They  knew  little  or  nothing  of  Biblical 
Criticism.  The  lower  or  textual  Criticism,  the  higher  or  lite- 
rary Criticism,  and  historical  Criticism,  are  sections  of  modem 
scientific  study  of  the  Bible.  Criticism  has  made  the  Bible 
a  new  book.  And  the  discipline  of  Biblical  Theology  which 
builds  on  the  results  of  Criticism  finds  in  the  Bible  a  new  the- 
ology— new  not  in  the  sense  that  it  destroys  anything  that  is 
valuable  in  the  old  theology,  but,  on  the  one  hand,  simpler, 
fresher,  full  of  life  and  energy,  quickening,  and  fascinating 
people  as  well  as  preacher;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  more  com- 
prehensive, more  profound,  more  symmetrical  and  harmoni- 
ous. It  is  sublime  and  indeed  divine,  because  it  brings  us 
face  to  face  with  holy  prophets  and  with  God  himself.  The 
old  scholastic  dogmatics,  in  which  the  most  of  the  ministry 
now  in  service  have  been  trained,  and  which  they  have  been 
taught  as  the  rule  of  faith  by  which  to  interpret  Bible  and 
History,  Christian  experience  and  human  life,  is  now  con- 
fronted by  a  Biblical  Theology  that  convicts  it  of  exaggera- 
tion in  human  speculation,  of  misinterpretation  of  the  Word 
of  God,  and  of  ignorance  of  some  of  the  most  important  facts 
and  teachings  of  the  Scriptures.  Biblical  Theology  has 
made  it  evident  that  the  dogmatic  systems  have  obscured  the 
Biblical  elements  with  the  ecclesiastical  and  the  speculative, 
and  have  thereby  as  Pharisaism  of  old  made  the  Word  of 
God  void  because  of  tradition.^ 

Historical  Theology  has  undermined  and  destroyed,  in 
»Mt.  XV..  6. 


310  CHURCH  UNITY 

large  measure,  the  ecclesiastical  claims  of  the  dogmaticians. 
We  now  know  well  the  history  of  doctrine  and  the  history  of 
dogma.  The  story  of  creed-formation  in  the  early  Church, 
and  the  controversies  resulting  in  the  construction  of  the  sym- 
bolical books  of  the  modem  Churches,  have  for  the  most  part 
been  made  evident  by  the  historical  investigation  of  their 
sources.  The  claims  of  authority,  that  were  strong  when 
these  Creeds  and  symbols  were  enveloped  with  a  halo  of 
mystery,  which  made  them  appear  as  wellnigh  inspired,  can 
no  longer  resist  the  evidences  of  human  passions  and  strifes, 
the  false  use  of  Scripture  and  History,  the  improper  methods 
of  argumentation,  the  errors  in  philosophy  and  psychology, 
that  to  such  an  extent  influenced  the  authors  of  the  symbols 
in  their  doctrinal  definitions.  We  have  learned  to  distinguish 
(1)  Biblical  Theology,  (2)  the  history  of  dogma,  (3)  the 
doctrine  of  the  Creeds,  (4)  the  speculations  of  the  dogmatic 
theologians. 

The  systems  now  in  use  in  the  United  States,  for  the  most 
part,  were  constructed  without  any  use  whatever  of  the  more 
fundamental  departments  of  theological  science;  and  yet 
in  childlike  simplicity  and  cool  dogmaticism  it  is  assumed 
that  they  are  Biblical,  churchly  and  confessional.  When  the 
dogmas  of  the  Churches  are  tested  by  the  Bible  and  by  His- 
tory, they  do  not  sustain  the  test  well  enough  to  resist  the 
demands  for  revision  and  for  new  and  simpler  Creeds.  I 
have  fully  shown  that  the  Churches  subscribing  to  the 
Westminster  Confession  have  widely  drifted  from  it  in  the 
teaching  of  their  leading  theologians  and  in  the  preaching  of 
the  pulpits. 

The  Westminster  system  has  been  virtually  displaced  by  the  teachings 
of  the  dogmatic  divines.  It  is  no  longer  practically  the  standard  of  the 
Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  The  catechisms  are  not  taught  in  our 
churches,  the  confession  is  not  expounded  in  our  theological  semi- 
naries. The  Presbyterian  Church  is  not  orthodox,  judged  by  its  own 
standards.  It  has  neither  the  old  orthodoxy  nor  the  new  orthodoxy.  It 
is  drifting  toward  an  unknown  and  a  mysterious  future.  {Whither  t  pp. 
223-4.) 


CHURCH  AND  CREED  311 

I  have  also  shown  in  another  place  by  a  comparative  table 
of  the  Westminster  Confession  and  two  of  the  leading  dog- 
matic systems  of  recent  times  that  the  proportions  of  the  Faith, 
set  forth  in  the  Westminster  Confession,  have  entirely  changed. 

New  doctrines  have  come  into  the  field,  old  doctrines  have  been  dis- 
carded; some  doctrines  have  been  depressed,  other  doctrines  have  been 
exalted.  The  systems  are  different  in  their  structure,  in  their  order  of 
material,  in  the  material  itself,  in  its  proportions,  and  in  the  structural 
principles.  The  essential  and  necessary  articles  of  about  one  half  of  the 
Westminster  system  are  in  these  systems,  but  the  other  half,  with  its 
essential  articles,  is  not  there.    {How  Shall  We  Revise  f  p.  11.) 

I  have  also  shown  from  a  table  of  all  the  proof  texts  of  the 
Westminster  Confession  that  667  texts  are  from  the  Epistles 
of  St.  Paul  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  only  248  from 
the  Gospels  and  247  from  the  other  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

Thus  the  Confession  is  built  on  the  words  of  Paul  rather  than  the 
words  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  It  is  Pauline  rather  than  comprehensively 
Christian.  .  .  .  There  are  so  many  omissions  of  important  doctrines  of 
Holy  Scripture,  there  is  such  a  disproportionate  use  of  the  darker  and 
gloomier  side  of  the  Bible,  and  such  a  neglect  of  the  brighter  and  more 
gracious  side,  and  there  is  such  a  difference  between  the  Confession  and 
the  preaching  of  the  pulpit  and  the  reading  of  the  Bible  in  our  homes, 
that  something  more  than  revision  will  be  required  to  meet  the  necessities 
of  the  case,  and  we  must  set  our  faces  toward  the  new  creed  as  the  only 
adequate  solution  of  the  diflficulties  of  the  situation.  (Jhid.,  pp.  139, 
181-2.) 

The  Westminster  Confession  having  already  been  dis- 
placed by  dogmatic  systems,  these  will  give  way  to  new  sys- 
tems constructed  on  more  scientific  principles  and  in  closer 
harmony  with  the  Bible  and  History.  Such  systems  will  dis- 
tinguish between  the  essential  and  the  non-essential  in 
Christian  doctrine,  and  thus  prepare  the  way  for  a  consensus 
Creed,  expressing  the  essential  doctrines  in  the  forms  suitable 
for  public  worship,  reserving  the  non-essential  doctrines  for 
the  discussion  of  the  class-room,  the  lecture,  the  treatise,  and 
the  ministers'  club. 


312  CHUKCH  UNITY 

The  Church  of  England  and  her  daughters  no  longer  re- 
gard belief  in  the  entire  body  of  the  Articles  of  Religion  as 
essential  to  Christian  ministerial  work.  The  Methodists  have 
reduced  these  Articles  to  a  simpler  form  and  are  not  rigid  in 
the  acceptance  of  them.  The  Congregational  Churches  no 
longer  insist  upon  the  Savoy  Declaration  or  the  Cambridge 
platform.  The  Baptist  Churches  have  no  common  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  that  binds  them,  but  at  most  simple  congrega- 
tional Creeds.  The  Protestant  Churches  of  the  Continent 
have  for  the  most  part  laid  aside  the  symbols  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. Where  this  has  not  been  formally  done  by  official 
action,  it  has  been  really  accomplished  by  common  consent. 
There  is  a  general  tendency  throughout  Protestant  Christen- 
dom toward  simple  statements  of  Faith  and  a  general  ac- 
quiescence in  the  old  (Ecumenical  Creeds  as  sufficient  even 
for  our  times. 

There  have  been  great  advances  in  doctrine  and  in  dogma 
in  modern  theology.  The  dogmatic  divines  have  generally 
laid  more  stress  on  the  new  doctrines  than  on  the  old  ones. 
A  recent  study  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  in  comparison  with 
several  systems  of  dogmatic  theology  in  general  use  at  the 
present  time,  showed  that  six  of  the  articles  of  the  Creed  (1, 
2,  3,  4,  11  and  12)  are  elaborated  in  more  or  less  fulness  in 
the  dogmatic  systems;  that  six  of  them  (5,  6,  7,  8,  9  and  10) 
have  been  to  a  great  extent  ignored,  and  that  there  are  six 
doctrines  not  in  the  two  ancient  Creeds  to  which  the  two 
representative  dogmatic  systems  of  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  and 
Dr.  W.  T.  Shedd  give  twice  the  attention  that  they  have  to 
the  12  articles  of  the  Creeds.  Those  doctrines  that  have 
risen  into  so  great  importance  as  to  suppress  the  ancient 
Catholic  doctrines  of  the  Church  are:  (1)  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures,  (2)  the  divine  decree,  (3)  original  sin,  (4)  vica- 
rious atonement,  (5)  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  (6)  everlasting  punishment.  This  group  of  doc- 
trines is  just  where  the  Church  is  divided.  These  have  been 
exaggerated  in  their  importance,  while  doctrines  in  which 
there  is  concord  are  passed  over  lightly  or  else  entirely  over- 


CHURCH  AND  CREED  313 

looked.  The  tendency  of  American  dogmatic  speculation 
has  been  in  one  direction,  while  the  tendency  of  the  Faith  of 
the  home  and  the  pulpit  has  been  in  another  direction;  so 
that  a  crisis  has  been  reached  and  a  break  has  come  between 
a  so-called  conservative  dogmatic  theology,  which  is  really 
radical  in  its  elaboration  of  speculative  dogma,  and  the  Faith 
and  life  of  the  Church,  which  adheres  to  the  simpler  state- 
ments of  the  Bible  and  to  the  ancient  Creeds. 

The  tendency  of  thought  in  the  present  century  has  been 
toward  the  person  and  work  of  Jesus  Christ.  This  urges  a 
return  to  the  ancient  Christological  Creeds.  The  life  of 
Christ  has  been  studied  as  never  before.  The  doctrine  of 
the  incarnation  has  again  become  prominent.  More  atten- 
tion is  now  given  to  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  enthrone- 
ment and  second  advent  of  our  Lord.  This  tendency  is  be- 
coming stronger  every  year;  it  will  eventually  become  so 
powerful  that  all  modern  doctrines  will  be  Christologised, 
and  then  it  will  be  possible  to  put  them,  in  their  essential 
contents,  into  the  devotional  form,  and  to  introduce  them  into 
the  liturgical  worship  of  the  Church. 

The  Reformation  did  not  go  on  to  its  completion.  It  came 
to  a  halt  too  soon.  It  over-emphasised  justification  and  ne- 
glected sanctification;  it  exaggerated  faith  and  depreciated 
holy  love  and  good  works.  It  threw  away  purgatory  and 
left  the  middle  state  between  death  and  the  resurrection  a 
blank.  It  is  now  clear  to  the  historical  critic  that  there  is 
one-sidedness  in  Protestantism  as  well  as  in  Roman  Catholi- 
cism; that  neither  of  these  great  religious  bodies  is  to  conquer 
the  other;  and  that  a  reconciliation  can  take  place  only  by 
each  overcoming  its  own  defects  and  becoming  more  com- 
prehensively Christian. 

Modern  critical  Philosophy,  Science  in  all  its  branches. 
History,  and  the  critical  study  of  the  Bible,  are  all  working 
together  to  give  the  theologian  treasures  of  truth  unknown  to 
former  ages.  The  critical  study  of  the  Bible  makes  it  a  richer 
and  a  grander  book,  and  finds  mines  of  doctrines  new  as  well 
as  old.    The  Church,  to  the  thoughtful  student  of  history. 


314  CHURCH  UNITY 

becomes  sublime,  notwithstanding  all  its  defects,  as  the 
Kingdom  of  Christ  on  earth.  The  Reason,  in  the  researches 
of  modern  Science  and  Philosophy,  has  become  a  vastly  more 
potent  factor  in  the  apprehension  and  in  the  comprehension 
of  divine  truth.  There  is  a  reconciliation  to  be  looked  for, 
to  be  longed  for  and  to  be  labored  for,  in  the  future,  to  which 
Churchman,  Rationalist  and  Evangelical  may  each  con- 
tribute. We  may  reasonably  expect  that  the  theological  con- 
flicts, the  dissolutions  of  old  theology,  the  reconstruction  of 
new  theology,  the  intense  and  eager  researches  after  the 
truth  of  God,  will  result  in  a  crisis  in  which  all  of  the  forces 
of  Christianity  will  come  into  play  in  order  to  give  birth  to  a 
new  age  of  the  world  in  which  the  discord  of  Christendom 
will  die  away,  and  concord  will  live  and  reign  and  express  its 
new  faith  and  new  life  in  a  Creed,  a  choral  of  praise  to  the 
triune  God,  in  which  all  the  essential  doctrines  of  Christianity, 
learned  from  all  the  struggles  and  triumphs  of  twenty  cen- 
turies, will  be  grouped  about  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the 
Holy  Spirit. 


XI 

THE    THEOLOGICAL    CRISIS,    ESPECIALLY    IN 
AMERICA 

The  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  was  established  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost  by  the  advent  of  the  divine  Spirit  in  theophany. 
The  divine  Spirit  came  in  fulfilment  of  the  promise  of  the 
Messiah  himself.  "It  is  expedient  for  you  that  I  go  away: 
for  if  I  go  not  away,  the  Comforter  will  not  come  unto  you; 
but  if  I  go,  I  will  send  him  unto  you.  Howbeit  when  he  the 
Spirit  of  truth,  is  come,  he  shall  guide  you  into  all  truth."  * 
The  divine  Spirit  came  in  order  to  remain  in  the  Church  as 
the  counsellor  and  guide  during  the  entire  Messianic  age 
until  the  second  advent  of  the  Son  of  God.  Accordingly, 
when  the  Christian  Church  in  all  lands  and  in  all  ages  has 
expressed  its  faith  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  has  thereby  confessed 
his  presence  and  divine  guidance  in  the  Church.  All  that 
wonderful  advance  in  Christian  life  and  doctrine  that  trans- 
formed the  ancient  civilisations,  conquered  Celtic,  Germanic 
and  Slavonic  races,  and  made  Christianity  the  religion  of  the 
world,  is  an  evidence  of  the  presence  and  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

Progress  in  doctrine  and  life  is  a  necessary  experience  of  a 
living  Church;  and  that  progress  will  never  cease  until  the 
Church  attains  its  goal  in  the  knowledge  of  all  the  truth,  in  a 
holiness  reflecting  the  purity  and  excellence  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  in  a  transformed  and  glorified  world.  Those  holy  men 
who  were  guided  by  the  divine  Spirit  to  found  the  Christian 
Church  and  build  the  first  layers  of  its  superstructure,  have 
given  sacred  writings  which  must  ever  remain  the  rule  of 
*John  xvi.,  7,  13. 
315 


316  CHURCH  UNITY 

faith  and  life.  Holy  Scripture  presents  the  ideal  toward 
which  the  Church  ever  aims  with  earnest  strivings.  The 
Holy  Spirit  guides  the  Church  in  its  appropriation  of  Holy 
Scripture,  and  this  is  ever  a  progressive  knowing  and  a  pro- 
gressive practice,  for  Christian  knowledge  cannot  advance 
far  beyond  Christian  life. 

I.  THE  ADVANCE  OF  THE  CHURCH 

Progress  has  always  been  confronted  by  conservatives  and 
reactionaries.  Jesus  and  Paul  had  a  lifelong  struggle  with 
Pharisees.  Every  advance  in  Christian  doctrine  and  the  holy 
life  has  cost  the  heroic  leaders  agony  and  blood.  But  the 
advance  has  been  made  in  spite  of  every  opposition.  The 
conservative  and  the  progressive  forces  are  in  perpetual  con- 
flict. They  wage  a  war  that  will  reach  its  end  only  in  the 
last  triumph  of  Christ. 

The  progress  of  the  Church  is  registered  in  symbolical 
books,  liturgies,  creeds,  and  canons  of  order  and  discipline. 
If  the  Church  had  submitted  itself  to  the  guidance  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  it  is  possible  that  its  progress  would  have  been 
normal  and  its  decisions  would  have  been  infallible.  But,  in 
fact,  human  forces  have  obstructed  the  free  development  of 
Christian  doctrine  and  life.  Human  passion  and  strife,  vio- 
lence, oppression  and  crime,  have  too  often  given  shape  and 
colour  to  the  decisions  of  Christian  synods  and  councils; 
and  therefore  their  decisions  have  mingled  God's  truth  with 
human  errors.  We  cannot  rest  with  confidence  upon  the 
decrees  of  any  ecclesiastical  assembly. 

As  Duchesne  well  says: 

In  the  second  century  after  several  alarms,  the  gnostic  crisis  ended  by 
calming  itself  entirely  alone.  Christianity  had  eliminated  the  morbid 
germs  simply  by  the  reaction  of  a  vigorous  organism.  Later  the  modal- 
ist  movement,  after  having  agitated  the  churches  a  little  everywhere,  in 
Asia,  at  Rome,  in  Africa,  in  Cyrene  and  in  Arabia,  was  gradually  extin- 
guished or  confined.  One  had  no  need  for  council,  nor  emperor,  nor  sym- 
bols nor  signatures.  The  quarrel  of  Origen  and  his  Bishop,  that  began 
with  much  ardor,  finished  of  itself.    In  that  of  Anus,  great  measures 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  CRISIS  IN  AMERICA  317 

were  advanced.  It  only  resulted  in  a  short  suspension  of  hostilities,  fol- 
lowed by  war,  abominable  and  fratricidal,  which  divided  entire  Christen- 
dom from  Arabia  as  far  as  Spain,  and  was  only  quieted  after  sixty  years 
of  scandal,  that  bequeathed  to  succeeding  generations  germs  of  schism 
from  which  the  Church  still  suffers.  {Histaire  Ancienne  de  VEglise,  II. 
p.  157.) 

Rightly,  then,  the  Westminster  Confession  teaches: 

All  synods  and  councils  since  the  Apostles'  times,  whether  general  or 
particular,  may  ^,  and  many  have  erred.  Therefore,  they  are  not  to  be 
made  the  rule  of  faith  or  practice,  but  to  be  used  as  a  help  in  both, 
(xxxi.  4.) 

The  ancient  controversies  that  separated  the  Oriental 
Churches, and  then  the  Greek  Church  from  the  Latin  Church, 
were  intensified  by  human  passion  and  ambition.  In  all 
these  controversies  the  doctrinal  statements  of  the  Latin 
Church  were  real  advances  in  theology;  but  the  unchristian 
conduct  of  the  leaders  of  the  Church  brought  on  those  un- 
fortunate divisions  which  not  only  sacrificed  the  unity  of  the 
Church,  but  also  gave  Islam  an  easy  victory  over  a  distracted 
Christendom,  and  wellnigh  yielded  to  it,  the  supremacy  of  the 
world. 

The  Latin  Church  was  in  throes  of  reformation  for  many 
generations  before  Luther  and  Zwingli.  The  stubborn  re- 
sistance to  the  reforming  spirit  broke  the  Latin  Church  into 
pieces,  and  resulted  in  the  formation  of  a  number  of  national 
Churches  over  against  the  Church  of  Rome.  These  all  de- 
fined their  position  in  symbols  of  Faith  in  antagonism  with  all 
other  parties.  The  three  great  principles  of  the  Protestant 
Reformation  were:  L  The  authority  of  the  Scriptures  is  su- 
preme over  the  authority  of  the  Church.  2.  Men  are  justified 
by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  not  by  good  works  prescribed  by 
the  Church.  3.  Men  are  saved  by  divine  grace,  and  not  by 
magical  rites  and  ceremonies.  These  great  principles  of  the 
Reformation  gave  new  shape  and  colour  to  all  other  Christian 
doctrines  that  were  looked  at  from  the  new  point  of  view. 

The  reformers  were  men  of  great  intellectual  and  moral 
vigor.     Their  doctrines  were  the  expression  of  their  Christian 


318  CHURCH  UNITY 

life  and  experience.  But  they  were  succeeded  by  lesser  men 
who  gave  their  energies  to  the  construction  of  systems  of 
dogma.  These  soon  enveloped  the  principles  of  the  Reforma- 
tion in  a  cloud  of  speculations  and  established  a  Protestant 
scholasticism,  ecclesiasticism  and  ritualism,  which  seemed  to 
earnest  men  little  better  than  that  which  the  reformers  had 
cast  aside.  Accordingly  a  second  reformation  arose  in  Great 
Britain  in  the  form  of  Puritanism,  which  reaffirmed  and 
sharpened  the  principles  of  the  Reformation%nd  advanced 
toward  a  holy  doctrine,  a  holy  discipline  and  a  holy  life. 
The  Puritan  Reformation  passed  over  to  the  Continent  in  the 
form  of  Pietism  and  transformed  the  Churches  of  Germany 
and  Holland ;  but  in  Great  Britain  the  Puritan  became  puri- 
tanical ;  and  the  choicest  youth,  driven  from  the  British  uni- 
versities and  educated  in  Switzerland  and  Holland,  returned 
with  a  scholastic  theology  which  soon  took  the  place  of  the 
principles  of  Puritanism. 

A  third  reforming  movement  arose  with  Wesley,  Whitefield, 
Edwards  and  others,  and  the  doctrine  of  regeneration  and 
Christian  experience  became  the  prominent  features  of  the 
new  advance.  But  this  regenerating  force  ere  long  became 
hardened  into  a  cold  and  barren  Evangelicalism. 

All  of  these  movements  were  due  to  the  reviving  influences 
of  the  divine  Spirit,  and  each  of  them  made  marked  advance 
in  Christian  theology  and  Christian  life.  Each  advance,  how- 
ever, carried  with  it  only  a  section  of  the  Church,  so  that  the 
Christian  Church  of  our  day,  in  its  divisions,  represents  every 
stage  of  progress  since  the  apostolic  times.  This  should  lead 
to  the  reflection  that  these  advances,  however  important  in 
themselves,  have  not  been  sufficiently  comprehensive  and 
essential  to  embrace  the  whole  of  Christendom.  The  great 
verities  of  the  Christian  religion  are  in  the  Nicene  and  the 
Apostles'  Creeds,  wherein  there  is  concord. 

We  stand  upon  the  heights  of  the  last  of  these  great  move- 
ments of  Christendom.  We  accept  all  that  has  been  gained 
in  them  all.  But  we  recognise  that  each  one  of  them  in 
turn  became  exhausted  and  hardened  and  stereotyped  in  a 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  CRISIS  IN  AMERICA  319 

dead  orthodoxy,  owing  to  the  reacting  influences  of  conserva- 
tism and  traditionalism.  What  is  the  gain  if  you  substitute 
first,  Protestant  tradition  for  Roman  CathoHc,  and  then  Puri- 
tan for  Protestant,  and  finally  Evangelical  for  Puritan? 
The  advance  is  in  the  principles  and  in  the  essential  features 
of  the  movement.  We  must  distinguish  between  the  essential 
and  the  non-essential.  As  soon  as  we  do  this,  we  see  Chris- 
tendom rising  in  a  pyramid  of  grace,  encompassed  by  tombs 
of  dead  theories  and  parties,  and  dreary  wastes  of  human 
speculation;  and  we  discern  that  there  is  but  one  platform 
for  Christendom,  the  common  consent  in  the  Nicene  and  the 
Apostles'  Creeds.  All  else  is  in  the  sphere  of  Christian  liberty. 
As  Isaac  Taylor  once  said: 

But  thus  it  is,  and  ever  has  been,  that  those  who  are  sent  by  heaven  to 
bring  about  great  and  necessary  movements,  which,  however,  are,  after 
a  time,  either  to  subside  or  to  fall  into  a  larger  orbit,  are  left  to  the  short- 
sightedness of  their  own  minds,  in  fastening  upon  their  work  some  appen- 
dage (perhaps  unobserved)  which,  after  a  cycle  of  revolutions,  must 
secure  the  accomplishment  of  heaven's  own  purpose — the  stopping  of 
that  movement.  Religious  singularities  are  heaven's  brand,  imprinted 
by  the  unknowing  hand  of  man,  upon  whatever  is  destined  to  last  its 
season  and  to  disappear.    {Wesley  and  Methodism,  p.  81.) 

We  have  reached  a  period  in  which  all  the  great  movements 
have  spent  their  force,  and  there  is  that  confusion,  agitation 
and  perplexity  which  indicates  the  birth  of  a  new  movement 
that  will  absorb,  comprehend  and  carry  to  loftier  heights 
all  that  have  preceded  it.  When  all  the  isms  have  been 
broken  off,  the  jagged  edges  of  controversies  will  disappear, 
and  Christian  parties  will  fuse  into  a  common  brotherhood. 

II.  THE  REAL  ISSUES 

No  one  can  understand  the  issues  involved  in  the  present 
theological  crisis  unless  he  distinguish  the  three  things :  ( 1 )  The 
doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture;  (2)  the  doctrine  of  Creeds; 
(3)  traditional  dogma.  In  the  evolution  of  Christian  The- 
ology the  constant  tendency  is  to  overlay  Scripture  and  Creed 


320  CHURCH  UNITY 

with  tradition.  Every  reforming  movement  must  strip  off 
the  traditional  dogmas  from  the  Scriptures  and  present  the 
genuine  achievement  of  the  Church  as  expressed  in  its  offi- 
cial symbols  apart  from  speculative  elaborations.  This  is  the 
real  issue  at  the  present  time.  There  is  a  rally  of  dogmati- 
cians  and  traditionalists  against  those  Biblical  and  historical 
scholars  who  are  aiming  to  dethrone  tradition  and  put  Holy 
Scripture  and  the  Creeds  in  their  proper  position  of  authority 
in  the  Church. 

It  must  be  evident  to  every  thinking  man  that  the  traditional 
dogma  has  been  battling  against  Philosophy  and  Science, 
History  and  Literature,  and  every  form  of  human  learning. 
In  this  battle  the  Bible  and  the  Creeds  have  been  used  in 
the  interests  of  this  dogma,  and  they  and  the  Church  have 
been  compromised  thereby.  It  is  of  vast  importance,  there- 
fore, to  rescue  the  Bible  and  the  Creeds  from  the  dogma- 
ticians.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  traditional  dogma 
is  doomed.  Shall  it  be  allowed  to  drag  down  into  perdition 
with  it  the  Bible  and  the  Creeds  ?  The  dogmaticians  claim 
that  their  dogma  is  in  the  Creed;  if  we  do  not  submit  to  it 
we  must  leave  the  Church.  They  insist  that  their  dogma  is 
in  the  Bible,  and  if  we  do  not  accept  it  we  must  give  up  the 
Bible.  Biblical  scholars  and  historical  students  propose  to 
do  neither  of  these  things;  on  the  contrary,  to  hold  up  the 
Bible  as  the  supreme  authority  for  the  Church;  to  build  on 
the  Creeds  as  the  ecclesiastical  test  of  orthodoxy.  Tra- 
ditional dogma  is  a  usurper,  and  it  will  be  dethroned  erelong 
from  its  last  stronghold. 

Traditional  dogma  in  the  Protestant  Reformed  Churches 
is  chiefly  the  scholastic  Calvinism  of  Switzerland  and  Holland 
of  the  seventeenth  century  mingled  with  elements  from  the 
British  Evangelicalism  of  the  eighteenth  century.  But 
alongside  of  it  is  an  apologetic  based  upon  the  Arminianism 
of  Bishop  Buder  and  an  ethical  philosophy  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  It  is  this  internal  strife  between  Calvinistic  dogma, 
Arminian  apologetics  and  Rationalistic  ethics  that  has 
brought  on  the  crisis  in  the  Churches.     Calvinistic  dogma 


THE  THEOLOGICAL   CRISIS  IN   AMERICA  321 

has  been  wellnigh  eliminated  from  the  Congregational 
Churches.  In  the  Presbyterian  Churches,  Semi-Arminianism 
demanded  a  revision  of  the  Calvinistic  sections  of  the  West- 
minster Confession.  The  Calvinistic  party  in  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church  is  a  vanishing  quantity.  The 
Baptist  Churches  seem  to  be  strong  in  their  Calvinism,  but 
there  are  signs  of  weakness  in  these  also.  But  the  battle 
between  Calvinism  and  Arminianism  is  no  longer  of  any 
practical  importance  to  the  Christian  world.  The  vast 
majority  of  Christians  have  settled  down  into  an  intermediate 
position,  just  that  which  was  determined  centuries  ago  by 
the  Synod  of  Orange  (529),  and  which  the  Roman  Catholic 
Chulrch  has  held  ever  since.  It  may  be  important  to  Presby- 
terians to  change  the  complexion  of  the  Calvinism  of  the 
Westminster  Confession,  but  such  a  change  will  have  little 
or  no  influence  upon  the  currents  of  modern  theology. 

The  most  important  questions  of  our  day  are  not  deter- 
mined in  any  of  the  Creeds  of  the  Church,  and  are,  therefore, 
beyond  the  range  of  orthodoxy.  When  the  Church,  in  its 
official  organs,  decides  these  questions,  then  for  the  first  time 
will  they  enter  into  the  field  of  orthodoxy.  Theological 
discussion  at  the  present  time  is,  for  the  most  part,  above  and 
beyond  the  lines  of  denominational  distinctions.  All  Chris- 
tian theologians  are  engaged  in  them,  without  regard  to  sect 
or  calling.  They  centre  about  three  great  topics:  The 
First  Things,  Bible,  Church  and  Reason;  the  Last  Things, 
the  whole  field  of  Eschatology;  and  the  Central  Thing,  the 
person  and  work  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  redemption  through 
him. 

III.  THE  SEAT  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  RELIGION 

This  was  an  essential  question  at  the  Reformation.  It 
has  been  a  fundamental  doctrine  ever  since.  There  are 
three  seats  of  Divine  authority — the  Bible,  the  Church  and 
the  Reason.  Define  Bible,  Church  and  Reason  as  you  may, 
in  any  case,  God  approaches  men  through  each  of  them. 
The  Christian  Church  is  divided  into  three  great  parties — 


322  CHURCH  UNITY 

Evangelicals,  Churchmen  and  Rationalists.  But  there  are 
many  subdivisions  of  these  parties,  and  not  a  few  who  take 
intermediate  positions.  The  Churchmen  make  the  Church 
supreme  over  Bible  and  Reason.  The  Evangelicals  make 
the  Bible  supreme  over  Church  and  Reason.  The  Ration- 
alists make  the  Reason  supreme.  The  conflict  between 
Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants  since  the  Reformation 
leaves  these  two  great  parties  in  very  much  the  same  relative 
strength  as  at  the  close  of  the  sixteenth  century.  Two  hun- 
dred years  have  shown  that  the  one  is  not  to  conquer  the 
other.  But  in  the  meanwhile  the  Rationalistic  party,  which 
had  but  few  adherents  in  the  sixteenth  century,  has  gained 
from  Roman  Catholic  and  Protestant  alike.  On  the  Con- 
tinent of  Europe,  at  least,  it  is  wellnigh  equal  to  either  of 
the  others.  It  seems  altogether  probable  that  neither  party 
is  to  yield  in  the  contest;  there  must  be  some  way  of  recon- 
ciliation in  a  higher  unity.  All  earnest  men  should  strive 
after  such  a  reconciliation. 

The  historian  recognises  that  men  have  found  God  in  the 
Bible,  the  Church  and  the  Reason.  If  this  be  so,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  those  who  use  the  three  media  of  communication 
with  God,  and  use  them  to  the  utmost,  will  be  most  likely 
to  attain  the  highest  degree  of  union  and  communion  with 
God.  It  is  the  opinion  of  Christian  scholars  that  Socrates 
and  pure-minded  heathen  have  ever  found  God  in  the  forms 
of  the  Reason.  Why  should  any  deny  that  modem  Ration- 
alists, and  seekers  after  God  among  the  people,  who  are  fenced 
off  from  Bible  and  Church  by  the  exactions  of  priest  and 
ecclesiastic,  find  God  enthroned  in  their  own  hearts?  The 
divine  Spirit  "worketh  when,  and  where,  and  how  he 
pleaseth";  and  though  he  ordinarily  works  through  Bible 
and  Church,  yet  when  these  channels  of  divine  grace  are  ob- 
structed by  the  rags  of  human  dogmatism,  or  when  by  the 
neglect  of  the  ministry  they  do  not  reach  forth  to  the  weak, 
the  ignorant  and  destitute,  the  divine  Spirit  works  without 
them  in  the  enlightening  and  salvation  of  men.  Where  Holy 
Scripture  does  not  work  as  a  means  of  grace,  the  divine  Spirit 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  CRISIS  IN  AMERICA  323 

may  work  now,  as  he  worked  before  the  Bible  and  the  Church 
came  into  existence. 

When  I  say  that  multitudes  of  Roman  Catholics,  Greek 
Christians,  Orientals  and  churchmen  of  every  name  have 
found  God  through  the  Church,  I  agree  with  the  Reformers 
in  recognising  these  as  Christians,  and  I  do  not  deny  the 
supremacy  of  the  Scriptures.  Where  the  Scriptures  are 
withheld  from  the  people  by  ecclesiastical  authority,  or 
where  earnest  seekers  after  God  are  driven  from  the  Bible 
by  the  dogmas  of  traditional  orthodoxy,  how  can  the  grace 
of  God  flow  to  them  through  the  Scriptures?  Those  who 
restrain  them  from  the  Bible  have  the  blame  of  keeping 
them  from  this  gate  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  The  only  ways 
of  access  left  them  are  the  Church  and  the  Reason.  And 
if  they  have  not  been  taught  to  use  the  Reason  as  a  means  of 
access  to  God,  God's  Spirit  will  make  the  Church  an  avenue 
of  grace.  Each  one  of  the  channels  of  divine  grace  should 
be  cleared  of  obstructions;  each  one  should  be  made  free 
and  open  to  the  use  of  man.  Then,  Holy  Scripture  will  rise 
into  acknowledged  superiority  over  them  all.* 

IV.  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

The  chief  reason  why  men  do  not  universally  recognise 
the  supremacy  of  Holy  Scripture,  is  that  the  scholastics  and 
traditionalists  have  thrust  the  Scriptures  aside,  have  en- 
cased them  in  speculative  dogma,  and  have  used  dogmatic 
theories  of  the  Bible  as  a  wall  fencing  off  earnest,  truth- 
seeking  men.  We  present  several  of  these  dogmatic  utter- 
ances. 

The  Presbyterian  Church,  in  unison  with  all  evangelical  Christians, 
teaches  that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  having  been 
given  by  the  immediate  and  plenary  inspiration  of  God,  are  both  in 
meaning  and  verbal  expression  the  Word  of  God  to  man. 

A  proved  error  in  Scripture  contradicts  not  only  our  doctrine,  but 
the  Scripture's  claims,  and  therefore  its  inspiration  in  making  those 
claims. 

^  See  InfaUibilUy  True  and  Falae,  viii.  pp.  243  /. 


324  CHURCH  UNITY 

Every  book  is  genuine  which  was  esteemed  genuine  by  those  who 
lived  nearest  to  the  time  when  it  was  written,  and  by  the  ages  following, 
in  a  continued  series. 

So  far  as  the  Old  Testament  is  concerned,  those  books,  and  those  only, 
which  Christ  and  his  apostles  recognised  as  the  written  word  of  God  are 
entitled  to  be  regarded  as  canonical.  .  .  .  The  principle  on  which  the 
canon  of  the  New  Testament  is  determined  is  equally  simple.  Those 
books,  and  those  only,  which  can  be  proved  to  have  been  written  by  the 
Apostles,  or  to  have  received  their  sanction,  are  to  be  recognised  as  of 
divine  authority. 

If,  as  one  asserts,  "  the  great  mass  of  the  Old  Testament  was  written  by 
authors  whose  names  are  lost  in  oblivion,"  it  was  written  by  uninspired 
men.  .  .  .  This  would  be  the  inspiration  of  indefinite  persons  like  Tom, 
Dick  and  Harry,  whom  nobody  knows,  and  not  of  definite  historical 
persons  like  Moses  and  David,  Matthew  and  John,  chosen  by  God  by 
name  and  known  to  men. 

These  are  specimens  of  the  statements  of  several  dogma- 
ticians  of  our  day,  and  of  traditional  theories  of  the  Bible 
that  prevail  among  the  ministry.  They  claim  that  inspira- 
tion is  verbal;  the  Bible  is  inerrant  in  every  particular;  the 
traditional  authors  of  the  Biblical  books  must  have  written 
them;  the  canon  accepted  by  the  dogmaticians  must  be 
accepted  by  all.  These  statements  are  insisted  upon  as  if 
they  were  orthodox,  and  yet  in  fact  there  is  not  a  Creed  in 
Christendom  that  indorses  them;  there  is  no  Biblical  authority 
for  them ;  they  are  purely  speculations  and  traditions,  without 
any  binding  authority  whatever.  These  dogmas  confront  a 
scientific  study  of  the  Bible. 

1.  The  critical  study  of  the  Canon  shows  clearly  that  the 
Christian  Church  has  never  been  in  concord  on  this  subject. 
The  Roman  Catholic  Church  follows  the  broader  Canon  of 
St.  Augustine  and  the  Septuagint  version  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Protestants  follow  the  stricter  Canon  of  St.  Jerome 
and  the  Jewish  synod  of  Jamnia.  But  not  a  few  of  the 
writings  of  the  stricter  Canon  were  disputed  by  Jew  and 
Christian.  And  the  Christian  writers  of  the  ante-Nicene 
age  used  as  Holy  Scripture  several  writings  which  are  not  in 
the  Augustinian  Canon.  The  Roman  Catholics  build  their 
Canon   on   the  authority  of  the  living  historical   Church. 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  CRISIS   IN  AMERICA  325 

The  Reformers  built  their  Canon  upon  the  authority  of 
the  divine  Spirit,  speaking  in  Holy  Scripture  to  the  be- 
Hever. 

We  know  these  books  to  be  canonical  and  the  sure  rule  of  our 
faith,  not  so  much  by  the  common  accord  and  consent  of  the  Church 
as  by  the  testimony  and  inward  persuasion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which 
enables  us  to  distinguish  them  from  the  ecclesiastical  books.  {Gallican 
Confession,  IV.) 

The  modern  Rationalists  test  the  Canon  by  the  Reason. 
But  modern  Evangelicalism  builds  not  on  the  judgment  of 
the  nineteenth  century,  but  the  judgment  of  the  seventeenth 
century;  not  on  the  authority  of  the  living  Church,  but  on 
the  authority  of  the  dead  Church.  It  has  abandoned  the 
internal  divine  evidence  of  canonicity,  and  destroyed  the 
base  of  Protestantism.  It  builds  on  an  uncertain,  fluctuating 
tradition,  and  in  that  tradition  selects  the  narrower  rather 
than  the  broader  line. 

Textual  Criticism  destroys  the  doctrine  of  Verbal  Inspira- 
tion. Language  is  the  vehicle,  the  dress  of  thought.  Thought 
may  find  expression  in  any  one  of  a  thousand  languages;  it 
may  be  dressed  in  a  great  variety  of  synonyms,  phrases 
and  literary  forms  in  any  highly  developed  language.  The 
form  may  vary  indefinitely,  and  yet  the  meaning  be  essen- 
tially the  same.  The  divine  communication  to  the  prophet's 
mind,  and  the  inspiration  to  give  it  utterance  by  pen  or 
tongue,  does  not  necessarily  carry  with  it  the  inspiration 
of  the  tongue  in  its  utterances  or  the  pen  in  its  constructions. 
No  Creed  in  Christendom  teaches  Verbal  Inspiration. 

I  shall  quote  a  few  English  divines  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  who  had  great  influence  in  the  formation  of  the 
Puritan  faith. 

All  language  or  writing  is  but  the  vessel,  the  symbol,  or  declaration  of 
the  rule,  not  the  rule  itself.  .  .  .  For  it  is  not  the  shell  of  the  words, 
but  the  kernel  of  the  matter  which  commends  itself  to  the  consciences 
of  men,  and  that  is  the  same  in  all  languages.  .  .  .  The  Scripture 
stands  not  in  cortice  verborum  but  in  medulla  senmis,  it  is  the  same  wine 
in  this  vessel  which  was  drawn  out  of  that.  .  .  .  The  Scriptures  in 


326  CHURCH  UNITY 

themselves  are  a  lanthom  rather  than  a  light;  they  shine  indeed,  but  it 
is  cdieno  lumine — it  is  not  their  own,  but  a  borrowed  light.  (Briggs' 
Whitherf^.m.) 

These  are  testimonies  of  Lyford,  Poole,  Vines,  and  Wallis, 
among  the  most  distinguished  scholars  of  their  time.  They 
compare  the  words  of  Scripture  to  vessels,  symbols,  shells, 
wine-glass,  lantern.  The  divine  word  is  in  the  contents,  the 
rule  itself,  the  kernel,  the  wine,  the  light.  Textual  criticism 
finds  no  diflficulty  with  these  ancient  divines  and  their  doc- 
trine of  Inspiration,  but  it  casts  off  the  modern  dogma  of 
verbal  inspiration  as  the  shroud  of  divine  truth,  the  grave- 
clothes  of  the  Word  of  God. 

3.  The  Higher  or  Literary  Criticism  on  purely  scientific 
principles  determines  the  integrity,  authenticity,  literary 
forms,  and  credibility  of  the  Scriptures.  It  works  with  the 
same  rules  that  are  used  in  every  other  department  of  the 
world's  literature.  These  principles  are:  1.  The  writing 
must  be  in  accordance  with  its  supposed  historic  position 
as  to  time,  place  and  circumstances.  2.  Differences  of 
style  imply  differences  of  experiences  and  age  of  the  same 
author,  or,  when  sufficiently  great,  differences  of  author 
and  period  of  composition.  3.  Differences  of  opinion  and 
conception  imply  differences  of  author  when  these  are  suffi- 
ciently great,  and  also  differences  of  period  of  composition. 
4.  Citations  show  the  dependence  of  author  upon  author, 
or  authors  cited.  5.  Positive  testimony.  6.  The  argument 
from  silence.^  The  application  of  these  rules  to  the  scientific 
study  of  the  Bible  has  shown  that  a  large  part  of  the  tradi- 
tions as  to  authorship,  date,  style  and  integrity  have  no 
solid  ground.  As  I  said  some  years  ago  in  an  Inaugural 
Address : 

Traditionalists  are  crying  out  that  it  is  destroying  the  Bible,  because  it 
is  exposing  their  fallacies  and  follies.  It  may  be  regarded  as  the  certain 
result  of  the  science  of  the  Higher  Criticism  that  Moses  did  not  write 
the  Pentateuch  or  Job;  Ezra  did  not  write  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah; 
Jeremiah  did  not  write  Kings  or  Lamentations;  David  did  not  write  the 

*  Study  of  Holy  Scripture,  pp.  95  sq. 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  CRISIS  IN  AMERICA  327 

Psalter,  but  only  a  few  of  the  Psalms;  Solomon  did  not  write  the  Song 
of  Songs  or  Ecclesiastes,  and  only  a  portion  of  the  Proverbs;  Isaiah  did 
not  write  half  of  the  book  that  bears  his  name.  The  great  mass  of  the 
Old  Testament  was  written  by  authors  whose  names  or  connection  with 
their  writings  are  lost  in  oblivion.  If  this  is  destroying  the  Bible,  the 
Bible  is  destroyed  already.  But  who  tells  us  that  these  traditional  names 
were  the  authors  of  the  Bible?  The  Bible  itself?  The  Creeds  of  the 
Church?  Any  reliable,  historical  testimony?  None  of  these  1  Pure 
conjectural  tradition  !  Nothing  more ! "  {Authority  of  Holy  Scripture f 
p.  33.) 

Higher  Criticism  cuts  up  the  dogmatic  theory  of  the  Bible 
from  the  roots.  If  the  traditional  dogma  be  correct,  Higher 
Criticism,  for  all  who  accept  its  conclusions,  has  destroyed 
the  inspiration  of  a  large  part  of  the  Bible.  The  dogma- 
ticians,  and  those  who  follow  them,  must  battle  with  Higher 
Criticism  in  a  life-and-death  struggle.  They  have  identified 
Bible  and  Creed  with  their  dogma,  and  they  are  risking 
everything  on  the  issue  of  the  struggle.  But  Higher  Criticism 
has  no  difficulty  in  dealing  with  them.  We  ask  them  who 
wrote  the  orphan  Psalms  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
They  cannot  tell  us.  Are  these  books  to  go  out  of  their 
Canon  because  they  were  written  by  "Tom,  Dick  and  Harry," 
whom  we  do  not  know  to  be  inspired  ?  And  even  if  we  could 
find  authors  for  all  the  Biblical  books,  how  can  we  prove  the 
inspiration  of  the  writers  except  from  the  books?  And  yet 
we  are  asked  to  accept  these  very  boolis  because  they  were 
written  by  these  inspired  men.  On  such  a  vicious  circle 
the  dogmaticians  build  their  faith. 

Higher  Criticism  finds  no  more  difficulty  in  accepting  the 
inspiration  of  those  great  unknown  poets  who  wrote  the  book 
of  Job  and  the  exilic  Isaiah,  than  it  does  of  the  prophets 
Hosea  and  Micah,  respecting  whom  there  is  no  doubt.  The 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  as  divine  as  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans;  the  name  of  Paul  does  not  add  a  feather's  weight 
to  its  authority.  We  determine  the  inspiration  of  the  writer 
from  the  inspiration  of  the  book,  and  we  determine  the 
inspiration  of  the  book  from  its  internal  character  and  the 
voice  of  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  it  to  the  behever.    The 


328  CHURCH  UNITY 

same  Holy  Spirit,  who  guided  holy  men  to  produce  the  writ- 
ings, gives  assurance  to  those  who  use  them  that  they  are  the 
Word  of  God. 

The  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  for  which  it  ought  to  be 
believed  and  obeyed,  dependeth  not  upon  the  testimony  of  any  man  or 
church,  but  wholly  upon  God  (who  is  truth  itself),  the  author  thereof; 
and  therefore  it  is  to  be  received,  because  it  is  the  Word  of  God. 
{Westm.  Conf.  I.  4.) 

Inerrancy 

4.  The  chief  struggle  between  Biblical  Criticism  and  the 
traditional  dogma  is  about  the  question  of  inerrancy.  No 
word  of  Holy  Scripture,  no  sentence  of  historic  Creed,  makes 
this  claim  for  the  Bible.  It  is  a  theory  of  modern  dogma- 
ticians.  Biblical  Criticism  finds  errors  in  Holy  Scripture  in 
great  numbers.  These  errors  are  in  the  circumstantials,  and 
not  in  the  essentials.  They  do  not  disturb  any  doctrine — 
they  do  not  change  the  faith  and  life  of  the  Christian  Church. 
The  great  reformers,  Calvin  and  Luther,  recognised  errors 
in  the  Scriptures;  Baxter  and  Rutherford  were  not  anxious 
about  them.  The  greatest  theologians  of  the  Continent, 
Van  Oosterzee,  Tholuck,  Neander,  Stier,  Lange,  Dorner, 
Delitzsch,  do  not  ignore  them.  Where  is  the  German  scholar 
of  any  rank  who  denies  them?  British  scholars  such  as 
Ryle,  Sanday,  Cheyne,  Driver,  Gore,  Davidson,  Bruce,  Dods; 
American  scholars  such  as  Schaff,  Fisher,  Thayer,  Toy,  Geo. 
Moore,  Vincent,  Harper,  Smythe,  H.  P.  Smith,  Francis  Brown, 
and  hosts  of  others,  frankly  point  them  out. 

It  may  be  regarded  as  the  consensus  of  Biblical  scholars 
that  the  Bible  is  not  inerrant;  and  yet  certain  dogmaticians 
insist  that  one  error  destroys  its  inspiration.  They  battle  in 
death  struggle  for  their  dogma  because  their  Bible  shares  in 
its  defeat.  They  risk  their  whole  Bible  on  a  single  error. 
One  error  in  citation,  one  error  in  natural  history,  in  as- 
tronomy, in  geology,  in  chronology,  destroys  the  whole  Bible 
for  them. 

It  is  now  generally  admitted  that  there  are  errors  in  the 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  CRISIS  IN  AMERICA  329 

present  text,  but  it  is  claimed  that  the  original  autographs  as 
they  first  came  from  their  authors  were  inerrant.  But  how 
can  they  prove  this  ?  It  is  pure  speculation  in  the  interest  of 
their  dogma.  Criticism  does  not  find  the  number  of  errors  de- 
creasing; they  rather  increase  as  we  work  our  way  back  in 
the  study  of  manuscripts,  versions  and  citations,  and  ad- 
vance in  the  critical  analysis  of  the  literature.  It  discredits 
the  entire  work  of  criticism  to  speculate  as  to  another  text 
than  the  best  one  we  can  get,  after  the  most  patient  and  pains- 
taking study.  It  is  certain  that  no  original  autograph  was  in 
the  possession  of  the  Church  at  the  first  or  at  any  later  stage 
of  the  determination  of  the  Canon  by  the  Church.^ 

Biblical  Criticism  pursues  its  work  in  a  purely  scientific 
spirit.  It  will  detect,  recognise  and  point  out  errors  when- 
ever it  may  find  them  in  Holy  Scripture.  If  the  Reformers 
and  Puritans,  the  great  Biblical  scholars  of  the  past,  have 
maintained  their  faith  in  the  Bible,  notwithstanding  the  errors 
they  have  seen  in  it,  it  is  improbable  that  the  Biblical  critics 
of  our  day  will  be  disturbed  by  them.  If  any  one  is  dis- 
turbed, it  will  be  those  who  have  been  misled  by  the  dogma- 
ticians  to  rest  their  faith  on  the  doctrine  of  inerrancy.  These 
will  ere  long  find  that  doctrine  a  broken  reed  that  will  give 
them  a  severe  fall  and  shock  to  their  faith,  if  it  does  not  pierce 
them  to  the  heart  with  the  bitter  agony  of  perplexity  and 
doubt. 

5.  The  dogmaticians  in  their  zeal  for  extending  the  in- 
spiration and  inerrancy  of  the  Bible  beyond  their  proper 
sphere  have  altogether  lost  sight  of  the  great  purpose  of  Holy 
Scripture  to  "make  men  wise  unto  salvation."  ^  Augustine's 
principle  that  "whatever  cannot  be  referred  to  good  conduct 
or  truth  of  faith  must  be  regarded  as  figurative,"  ^  however 
defective  as  a  principle  of  interpretation,  yet  drew  the  line 
just  where  it  ought  to  be  drawn  for  the  use  of  Holy  Scripture 
by  the  Christian  Church.  This  allegorical  principle  pre- 
vailed all  through  the  Christian  Church  until  the  sixteenth 

*  Study  of  Holy  Scripture,  pp.  133  sq. 

2 II  Tim.  iii.  15.  « See  p.  237. 


330  CHURCH  tJNiTY 

century  and  in  a  large  part  of  the  Church  since.  It  was  the 
more  scientific  study  of  the  Bible  that  brought  moderns  into 
trouble  as  regards  questions  of  Inspiration  and  Inerrancy. 
The  science  of  Biblical  Interpretation  has  also  dislodged  not  a 
few  proof  texts  of  old-fashioned  systems  of  Divinity  and  de- 
stroyed numberless  sermons.  This  in  itself  excites  the  hos- 
tility of  large  numbers  of  ministers  to  the  newer  exegesis.  It 
has  become  evident  that  while  the  Bible  is  an  infallible  rule 
of  Faith  and  Practice,  it  is  not  infallible  in  other  spheres. 
The  Bible  is  not  an  encyclopaedia  of  all  knowledge.  No  one 
goes  to  the  Bible  for  instruction  in  Geology,  Astronomy,  Phys- 
ics, Natural  History,  Civil  Law,  or  Medicine.  In  all  these 
departments  the  Bible  is  not  inerrant,  infallible,  or  even  au- 
thoritative.^ Those  who  have  used  the  Bible  for  that  pur- 
pose in  the  past,  have  obstructed  the  progress  of  Modern 
Science,  and  have  committed  grave  mistakes  to  the  great  in- 
jury of  the  Bible  and  of  Christianity. 

6.  The  improvement  in  our  knowledge  of  Biblical  History, 
with  its  helps.  Biblical  Geography,  Biblical  Archaeology  and 
Biblical  Chronology,  has  changed  the  face  of  the  Bible.  It 
has  become  evident  that  we  cannot  find  infallibility  in  any  of 
these  departments  as  such.  They  present  the  same  legendary, 
mythical  and  poetic  sources  as  other  ancient  Histories,  and 
have  a  similar  proportion  of  errors.  Historical  Criticism  is 
just  as  necessary  in  Biblical  History  as  in  any  other  History, 
to  eliminate  truth  and  fact  from  error  and  fiction.  Here 
again  we  have  to  consider  the  purpose  of  the  History  as  a 
History  of  redemption,  to  make  men  wise  unto  salvation.  So 
far  as  the  History  fulfils  this  purpose  it  is  infallible  as  a  rule  of 
faith  and  practice.  Apart  from  this  purpose,  it  has  no  more 
authority  than  any  other  History,  save  that  we  must  take 
account  of  it  as  the  sacred  envelope  of  the  Holy  substance, 
and  as  thereby  made  more  truthful  and  reliable  even  in  ex- 
ternals than  ordinary  History. 

7.  The  most  important  department  of  recent  Biblical 
Science  is  Biblical  Theology.     Biblical  Theology  rests  upon 

» See  p.  237. 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  CRISIS  IN  AMERICA  331 

Biblical  Criticism.  It  has  to  determine  the  theology  of  each 
document  by  itself,  then  to  compare  the  theologies  of  the  docu- 
ments and  ascertain  those  things  in  which  they  agree,  and 
those  in  which  they  differ.  This  work  proceeds  through  the  en- 
tire Bible,  until  at  length  the  unity  and  variety  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture is  discerned  and  then  set  forth  in  its  entirety.  Biblical 
Theology  traces  the  development  of  every  doctrine,  every 
form  of  religion  and  every  phase  of  morals.  Nothing  is 
overlooked  that  is  found  in  the  Bible.  Biblical  Theology  is 
the  youngest  of  the  daughters  of  Biblical  Science.  The 
writer  was,  if  he  mistake  not,  the  first  in  this  country  to  write 
upon  the  subject  and  to  attempt  a  complete  course  of  lectures 
upon  it. 

The  study  of  Biblical  Theology  puts  Dogmatic  Theology 
to  a  severe  test.  In  Germany  it  long  since  forced  a  recon- 
struction of  dogmatics.  The  great  systematic  theologians 
of  our  time,  such  as  Dorner,  Martensen,  Van  Oosterzee, 
Miiller,  Kahnis,  Ritschl,  build  upon  it.  But  American 
dogmaticians  have  not  studied  it  until  recently.  They  per- 
sist in  methods,  lines  of  argumentation  and  a  use  of  proof- 
texts  which  have  long  since  been  discarded  in  Europe.  The 
present  theological  crisis  is  due  largely  to  the  resistance  to 
Biblical  Theology  on  the  part  of  some  dogmaticians  and  their 
pupils,  representing  the  majority  of  the  ministry  who  were 
trained  under  the  old  methods.  They  have  been  taught  that 
Dogmatic  Theology  is  only  a  systematic  expression  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Bible. 

But  Biblical  Theology  makes  it  clear  that  these  systems 
are  chiefly  speculative,  and  that  if  they  were  reduced  to  their 
Biblical  dimensions  their  authors  would  hardly  recognise 
them.  Like  a  big  orange,  with  thick  skin  and  a  mass  of 
pulp,  they  yield  Htde  juice.  These  dogmatic  systems  neglect 
large  masses  of  Holy  Scripture,  they  depreciate  some  Biblical 
doctrines  of  great  importance  and  exaggerate  others  of  little 
importance,  and  so  the  whole  face  of  Biblical  doctrine  is 
changed.  Let  any  one  study  the  proof-texts  in  the  indexes 
of  the  favourite  systems  of  dogma  used  in  America,  and  he 


332  CHURCH  UNITY 

will  at  once  see  the  significance  of  what  has  been  said.  There 
is  a  capricious  use  of  the  Bible  which  is  the  reverse  of  sys- 
tematic. There  is  a  piling  up  of  huge  masses  of  dogma  on  a 
few  innocent  texts,  and  a  brief  mention  of  those  comprehen- 
sive Biblical  statements  which  Luther  named  little  Bibles. 
I  yield  to  no  one  in  admiration  of  a  true  systematic  theology 
such  as  those  attempted  by  Henry  B.  Smith  and  Isaac  A. 
Domer,  Martensen,  Kahnis  and  Van  Oosterzee.  These 
theologians  aim  at  a  complete  system  built  upon  Philosophy 
and  Science,  Bible  and  History,  Church  and  Creed.  But 
those  American  dogmatic  systems  that  depreciate  the  Reason, 
and  then  go  to  extremes  in  dogmatic  speculation ;  that  ignore 
Biblical  Theology,  and  then  search  the  Bible  with  a  lantern 
for  props  for  their  dogmas;  that  turn  their  backs  on  the  his- 
torical Church  and  institutional  Christianity,  and  then  chase 
every  shadow  of  tradition  that  may  seem  to  give  them  sup- 
port, however  feeble;  such  systems  are  but  castles  in  the  air, 
schoolboys'  bubbles — the  delight  of  a  body  of  ministers  in  a 
period  of  transition,  but  without  the  slightest  substantial 
contribution  to  the  faith  and  life  of  the  generations  to  come. 

The  Bible  a  Means  of  Grace 

8.  The  most  important  thing  about  the  Holy  Scriptures 
is  their  use  as  the  great  means  of  divine  grace.  This  has 
been  recognised  among  the  Jews  and  the  Christians  in  all 
lands  and  in  all  Churches.  The  reading  of  Holy  Scripture 
in  the  regular  service  of  the  Church,  the  cantillation  of  the 
Psalms,  the  prayers  full  of  the  language  and  thoughts  of  the 
Bible,  the  words  of  institution  making  the  Sacraments  ef- 
fective, and  the  sermon  which  is  essentially  the  preaching  of 
the  word  of  God — all  this  shows  what  the  Bible  has  always 
been  in  the  mind  of  the  Christian  Church.  Now  it  is  just 
this  most  important  thing  that  dogmaticians  have  overlooked 
and  neglected. 

The  Holy  Scriptures  were  given  with  the  purpose  of  sal- 
vation.    The  grace  of  salvation  was  breathed  into  them  by 


THE  THEOLOGICAL   CRISIS   IN  AMERICA  333 

the  divine  Spirit.  They  contain  that  grace  and  convey  it  in 
their  proper  use.  The  Gospel  is  "  the  power  of  God  unto  salva- 
tion to  every  one  that  believeth."  *  This  grace  is  not  physical 
or  magical,  but  religious  and  moral,  conveyed  by  words.  It  is 
a  power  of  suggestion,  which  invokes  attention,  and  thereby, 
through  the  hearing  of  the  ear,  or  the  seeing  of  the  eye,  passes 
through  these  gates  of  the  mind  into  the  very  soul  itself. 

The  words  of  Holy  Scripture  that  concern  salvation  are 
not  mere  words  which  contain  cold,  abstract,  or  even  con- 
crete, ideas  for  mere  information  or  knowledge.  They  are 
living  words  having  quickening  power.  Jesus  said:  "The 
words  that  I  have  spoken  unto  you  are  spirit  and  are 
life."^  They  are,  indeed,  ever  accompanied  by  the  personal 
presence  of  the  divine  Spirit  who  makes  them  personal 
words  from  God  to  the  human  soul.  The  words  of  Holy 
Scripture  are  words  of  wisdom,  "they  make  wise  unto  sal- 
vation " ;  ^  which,  in  accordance  with  the  Biblical  use  of 
wisdom,  implies  the  making  of  the  mind,  affections  and  will 
all  operative  in  wisdom.  They  illuminate  the  mind,  kindle 
the  torch  of  Truth  which  chases  away  the  mists  and  clouds 
of  error  and  gives  the  practical  acquaintance  with  religious, 
holy  and  divine  realities,  and  puts  everything  else  in  relation 
to  them.  They  arouse  the  religious  affections  by  the  reve- 
lation of  an  affectionate  God,  whose  love  in  religious  experi- 
ence warms  into  life  and  vigour  a  responsive  love  of  grati- 
tude, admiration  and  devotion.  They  make  evident  the 
eternal  fitness  of  things  by  enabling  us  to  see  all  things  in  the 
light  of  God  and  eternity,  and  so  they  impel  with  irresistible 
force  to  moral  conduct,  to  the  following  of  Jesus  Christ  in 
a  holy  and  godlike  life. 

Salvation  is  the  great  ideal  that  pervades  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures as  a  holy  thread  binding  all  their  parts  together  into  a 
divine  library  of  salvation.  They  give  a  history  of  salvation, 
the  experiences  of  a  multitude  of  holy  men  and  women  in  the 
ways  of  salvation,  and  the  precepts  and  divine  impulses  to 
salvation.     By  Holy  Scripture  we  are  convicted  of  sin,  are 

»  Rom.  i.  16.  « John  vi.  63.  '  II  Tim.  iii.  15. 


334  CHURCH  UNITY 

invited  to  repentance,  are  assured  of  forgiveness,  and  are 
led  to  justification  by  faith  and  sanctification  by  love. 

The  Holy  Scriptures  are  universal  and  eternal  in  their 
power  of  salvation.  They  aim  at  the  salvation,  complete, 
entire  and  perfect,  of  all  mankind,  the  entire  race  of  man. 
The  Bible  is  an  eternal  book;  it  is  old  and  yet  ever  new. 
To  each  succeeding  generation  it  brings  salvation.  New 
light  is  ever  breaking  forth  from  the  word  of  God  and  will 
ever  continue  so  to  do  until  the  Holy  Spirit  has  guided  the 
Church  into  all  the  Truth. 

The  Church,  in  its  oflScial  utterances  in  Creeds,  Liturgies 
and  Symbols  of  Faith,  has  wisely  limited  itself  to  stating  the 
sure  things,  the  important  things  about  the  Bible.  Theo- 
logians should  do  the  same.  The  time  has  surely  come  when 
they  should  cease  exacting  tithes  of  mint,  anise  and  cummin  ^ 
of  the  faith  of  God's  people  by  exaggerating  the  doctrines  of 
inspiration,  inerrancy  and  the  like,  and  limit  themselves  to 
the  weightier  matters  that  the  Bible  itself  teaches,  and  the 
consensus  of  the  Church,  in  its  use  of  the  Bible,  requires. 

V.  LAST  THINGS 

The  Last  Things  embrace  Death,  the  Middle  State,  the 
Resurrection  and  the  Messianic  Judgment  with  its  rewards 
and  penalties.  The  Reformers  rejected  the  Roman  Catholic 
doctrine  of  Purgatory,  but  did  not  state  a  Protestant  doctrine 
of  the  Middle  State.  They  concentrated  their  attention  upon 
Justification  by  Faith  at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  life, 
they  did  not  unfold  the  whole  doctrine  of  Redemption.  The 
field  of  Eschatology  was  left  by  them  in  a  very  obscure  condi- 
tion. They  simply  maintained  the  old  Church  doctrine  after 
they  had  stripped  off  the  supposed  Roman-Catholic  errors. 
They  made  no  advance  at  this  point.  Great  changes  have 
taken  place  in  the  Christian  world  since  the  Reformation. 
The  neglect  of  infant  baptism  and  Church  membership  by 
the  masses  in  Christendom,  and  the  opening  up  of  the  heathen 
»  Mt.  xxiii.  23. 


THE  THEOLOGICAL   CRISIS   IN  AMERICA  335 

world  in  numbers  greatly  exceeding  the  nominal  Christian 
world,  have  compelled  earnest  men  to  ask  the  question  how 
infants  can  be  saved,  and  how  the  heathen,  any  of  them,  may 
be  redeemed  in  accordance  with  the  Protestant  doctrine  of 
Justification  by  Faith.  Increased  attention  to  Christian 
Ethics  and  the  doctrine  of  Sanctification  has  raised  the  ques- 
tion how  men  dying  imperfect  and  unsanctified  are  to  be  sanc- 
tified, yhese  questions  are  not  answered  by  the  Creeds. 
They  have  been  considered  only  in  a  very  inadequate  way  in 
the  traditional  dogma;  they  demand  a  more  thorough  in- 
vestigation and  scientific  statement.  The  Christian  world  is 
agitated  on  all  these  questions,  and  the  theological  crisis  is 
largely  due  to  these  discussions.  There  is  great  need  of 
patience,  charity,  independent  and  fearless  investigation, 
while  they  are  in  debate. 

VI.  THE  MIDDLE  STATE 

The  time  has  fully  come  when  Protestant  Churches  are 
compelled  to  confront  the  question  of  the  Middle  State  and 
the  nature  of  Christian  life  therein.  This  crisis  is  due:  (1)  To 
an  entire  change  of  attitude  toward  the  Second  Advent  of 
Jesus  Christ;  (2)  to  the  spread  in  the  churches  of  the  Armin- 
ian  doctrine  of  probation;  (3)  to  the  general  acceptance  of  the 
new  doctrine  of  the  universal  salvation  of  infants;  (4)  to  the 
development  of  the  doctrine  of  sin  and  guilt  in  connection 
with  a  further  unfolding  of  Philosophical  Ethics  and  a  deeper 
study  of  Christian  Ethics.  In  these  four  directions  Prot- 
estantism, and  especially  Calvinistic  Churches,  have  departed 
a  long  distance  from  the  Creeds  of  the  Reformation  and  the 
Confession  and  Catechisms  of  Westminster. 

1.  The  doctrine  of  the  Middle  State  depends  chiefly  upon 
the  doctrine  of  redemption.  All  mankind  are  born  into  this 
world  in  a  condition  of  sin  and  ruin.  All  need  redemption. 
Redemption  is  born  of  the  love  of  God.  God  is  love.  The 
love  of  God  is  the  well-spring  of  election,  predestination  unto 
life,  and  all  the  acts  and  works  of  God  for  the  accomplish- 


336  CHURCH  UNITY 

ment  of  the  redemption  of  man.  It  is  a  doctrine  of  scholastic 
Protestants  that  divine  sovereignty  is  the  source  of  the  elec- 
tion. Some  of  these  scholastic  divines  have  gone  so  far,  in 
their  subordination  of  the  divine  love  to  the  divine  sovereignty, 
that  they  have  pushed  the  love  of  God  and  the  compassion  of 
the  heavenly  Father  behind  the  justice  of  the  judge  and  the 
good  pleasure  of  the  sovereign,  and  thereby  have  come  close 
to  the  unpardonable  sin  of  limiting  the  grace  of  God  and 
denying  the  power  of  the  Divine  Spirit.  A  genuine  Prot- 
estantism, such  as  we  find  in  the  Symbols  of  the  Reformation, 
teaches  that  God's  election  is  an  election  of  grace.  The  grace 
of  God  is  so  vast  and  inexhaustible  that  we  may  assume  that 
God  will  redeem  a  larger  number  of  our  race  than  any  man 
could  suppose.  God*s  love  and  power  to  save  are  infinitely 
greater  than  the  love  and  redemptive  yearnings  of  all  creatures 
combined. 

The  love  of  God  works  redemption  through  Jesus  Christ 
the  Saviour  of  the  world,  and  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  who 
imparts  the  new  life  and  growth,  without  which  salvation  is 
impossible;  and  also  through  the  paternal  superintendence 
and  government  of  the  Heavenly  Father.  The  redeemed  con- 
sist, therefore,  of  those  who  belong  to  the  elect  of  God,  who 
have  been  purchased  by  Jesus  Christ  and  who  have  been  born 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  redeemed  consist  of  the  elect  only. 
There  can  be  no  redemption  that  does  not  originate  in  the 
election  of  grace;  in  the  love  of  the  Heavenly  Father's  heart. 
The  Reformers  and  Puritans  apprehended  the  love  of  God 
and  magnified  the  divine  grace  in  election  and  predestination. 
That  is  the  reason  they  made  so  much  of  these  high  doctrines. 
They  also  emphasised  the  doctrine  of  forgiveness  of  sins, 
which  is  so  closely  related  to  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  grace. 
Scholastic  divines,  when  they  substituted  sovereign  election 
for  the  election  of  grace,  divided  mankind  into  two  classes, 
those  predestinated  unto  life  and  those  predestinated  unto 
everlasting  death,  and  thus  made  both  classes  dependent 
upon  the  good  pleasure  of  the  will  of  the  sovereign,  without 
regard  to  their  actual  sins  or  acceptance  of  the  provisions  of 


THE  THEOLOGICAL   CRISIS  IN   AMERICA  337 

redemption.  As  a  natural  result  of  this  theory  the  mass  of 
mankind  were  doomed  to  everlasting  perdition  in  hell  fire, 
and  only  a  few  were  snatched  from  the  burning. 

These  scholastic  divines  also  substituted  God  the  Judge  for 
God  the  Father,  and  accordingly  overlooked  the  Fatherhood 
of  God  and  abandoned  the  doctrine  of  forgiveness  of  sins. 
The  supreme  forms  of  this  scholasticism  were  the  supralap- 
sarian  theory,  that  made  the  decree  of  election  and  preterition 
prior  to  the  decrees  of  the  creation  and  the  fall  of  man,  and 
the  kindred  Antinomian  theory,  that  made  justification  eternal 
and  entirely  independent  of  human  faith  and  repentance. 
Such  scholasticism  had  no  need  of  a  Middle  State  between 
Death  and  the  Day  of  Judgment.  It  is  hard  to  see  what  need 
there  was  of  life  in  the  present  world.  It  is  difficult  for  this 
theory  to  explain  why  God  did  not  send  men  to  heaven  and 
hell  at  once  in  accordance  with  His  arbitrary  and  eternal  de- 
cree, which  has  no  respect  to  life  in  this  world  and  life  after 
death,  without  requiring  them  to  undergo  a  life  and  death 
which  have  no  effect  whatever  upon  their  eternal  welfare. 
Antinomianism  has  ever  been  regarded  as  a  heresy.  It  was  a 
sad  mistake  that  supralapsarianism  was  not  placed  with  Anti- 
nomianism in  the  catalogue  of  heresies.  The  repute  of  a  few 
distinguished  divines,  who  maintained  it,  ought  not  to  have 
restrained  the  Church  from  branding  their  error  with  the 
stigma  it  deserves. 

God's  love  is  a  love  that  is  eternal  in  its  origin.  It  is  also 
everlasting  in  its  outgoings  toward  God's  creatures.  It  is  a 
love  prior  to  time  and  above  and  beyond  all  time,  but  it  is 
also  a  love  that  enters  into  time  and  pervades  all  time.  If 
we  have  a  real  apprehension  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God,  we 
cannot  doubt  that  the  divine  love  is  a  living  and  unfolding 
love,  and  that  it  assumes  the  form  of  parental  love  that  never 
forsakes  the  child  from  his  birth  onward  through  all  the  ages 
of  his  growth,  even  to  the  end.  From  this  point  of  view,  if 
life  in  this  world  is  brief  and  life  in  the  Middle  State  is  long, 
we  must  rise  to  the  conception  of  the  love  of  God  as  accom- 
plishing even  greater  works  of  redemption  in  the  Middle  State 


338  CHURCH  UNITY 

than  in  this  world.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  ever 
had  this  conception.  Its  doctrine  of  purgatory  has  a  power- 
ful influence  upon  the  religious  life  in  this  world  and  upon 
the  entire  system  of  Roman  Theology.  Protestantism,  when 
it  threw  overboard  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  purgatory, 
also  threw  away  with  it  much  of  the  ancient  Catholic  doc- 
trine of  the  Middle  State.  It  magnified  the  love  of  God  in 
the  grace  of  election  and  forgiveness  of  sins  in  this  life,  but  did 
not  trace  the  workings  of  the  divine  grace  in  the  Middle  State. 

2.  The  Protestant  reformers,  however,  laid  hold  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Living  God,  and  found  vital  union  with  Him 
in  redemption,  and,  in  this  respect,  overcame  the  abstract 
ideas  of  God  that  prevailed  in  the  Roman  Church.  This 
doctrine  of  the  Living  God  was  abandoned  by  Protestant 
scholastics.  Dr.  Isaac  Dorner  again  brought  it  into  promi- 
nence, and  it  is  becoming  fruitful  in  a  living  theology.  This 
doctrine  is  important  for  the  unfolding  of  the  Middle  State. 
Those  who  are  in  vital  relations  with  the  Living  God  can 
never  die.  They  live  on  beyond  the  gate  of  death;  they  live 
the  life  of  God,  in  communion  with  God.  Such  a  life,  hid  in 
this  world  with  Christ,  there  manifests  itself  in  its  richness 
and  fulness.  It  unfolds  from  one  degree  of  glory  into  an- 
other. What  wonders  of  redemption  are  wrapped  up  in  life 
with  God  I  What  infinite  possibilities  are  within  the  reach 
of  that  being  whose  life  is  begotten  of  God,  and  whose  life 
has  no  other  end  or  aim  than  the  transcendent  experience  of 
divine  sonship  and  the  supreme  blessedness  of  GodlikenessI 

3.  Protestantism  was  at  fault  in  taking  too  narrow  a  view 
of  redemption.  It  was  necessary  to  magnify  justification  by 
faith  and  carefully  separate  it  from  sanctification  and  glori- 
fication, but  it  was  a  mistake  to  lay  such  stress  on  justification 
and  faith  that  sanctification  and  love  were  thrown  into  the 
background,  and  this  to  such  an  extent  that  some  divines  had 
the  presumption  to  teach  that  good  works  were  hurtful  to  sal- 
vation. This  narrowing  of  the  original  base  of  the  Reforma- 
tion was  the  chief  reason  why  Staupitz  and  other  evangelical 
men  preferred  to  remain  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  Church 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  CRISIS  IN  AMERICA  339 

of  Rome  still  maintains  a  more  comprehensive  view  of  redemp- 
tion than  is  common  in  Protestant  Churches.  Her  fault  is 
that  she  does  not  distinguish  and  properly  define  justification 
and  sanctification.  Protestantism  defined  justification,  but 
left  sanctification  in  a  very  uncertain  condition.  The  Puritan 
Reformation  unfolded  the  doctrine  of  sanctification  and  de- 
fined it  as  a  progressive  work  of  God,  but  did  not  define  its 
appropriating  instrument.  It  laid  stress  on  the  importance  of 
sanctification  in  this  life.  It  saw  that  sanctification  must  be 
completed  in  the  Middle  State  but  it  left  this  subject  in  such 
an  obscure  form  that  it  has  been  the  general  opinion  in  Cal- 
vinistic  Churches  that  sanctification  was  completed  at  the 
very  moment  of  death. 

4.  This  interpretation  was  favoured  by  the  scholastic  di- 
vines, who  taught  the  doctrine  of  a  judgment  at  death  which 
assigns  men  to  heaven  or  hell.  This  doctrine  of  a  judg- 
ment at  death  has  no  warrant  in  the  Scriptures  or  in  the 
Creeds  of  Christendom.  It  is  not  only  unsupported  by  Scrip- 
ture and  the  Symbols,  but  it  violates  them  all;  for  it  throws 
the  day  of  judgment  into  the  background,  robs  it  of  its  place 
and  importance  in  the  Christian  system  and  in  religious  ex- 
perience, and  applies  many  passages  of  Scripture  that  belong 
only  to  it,  to  the  judgment  at  death,  and  so  makes  death  the 
supreme  issue. 

Furthermore,  the  doctrine  of  a  judgment  at  death  is  a 
heathen  doctrine  derived  from  the  heathen  mythological  con- 
ception of  a  god  of  the  realm  of  the  dead.  It  was  taken  up  by 
the  scholastic  divines  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  borrowed  from 
them  by  the  Protestant  scholastics.  It  does  violence  to  the 
doctrine  of  Scripture  and  the  Augustinian  doctrine  of  Sin  and 
Grace,  that  the  human  race  had  its  probation  in  Adam,  and 
when  he  fell  was  judged  in  him  and  condemned  to  death  and 
the  abode  of  the  lost.  The  heathen  doctrine  of  a  judgment 
at  death  throws  both  the  original  judgment  and  the  final 
judgment  into  the  background,  and  puts  a  crisis  in  a  false 
place  in  the  history  of  redemption.^ 

'  See  Brigga'  Whither  ?  pp.  195  /. 


340  CHURCH  UNITY 

5.  Furthermore,  the  attitude  of  Theology  in  the  eighteenth 
and  nineteenth  centuries  has  been  changed  toward  the  great 
crisis  of  the  Second  Advent  The  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures 
and  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  in  all  its  Creeds,  Symbols  and 
Liturgies  is  that  the  Advent  is  imminent.  This  is  expressed 
in  that  wonderful  hymn,  "  Dies  Irse."  But  in  the  eighteenth 
century  two  errors,  that  were  revived  by  the  Anabaptists  and 
a  few  isolated  scholars,  gained  a  rapid  supremacy  in  the  The- 
ology of  the  Protestant  Churches.  The  one  of  these  is  the 
Premillenarian  doctrine.  This  separated  the  advent  of  the 
Messiah  by  a  thousand  years  from  the  last  judgment.  It  re- 
tained the  church  doctrine  of  the  imminency  of  the  Advent, 
but  pushed  the  divine  judgment  into  the  background.  The 
other  error  was  still  more  serious,  for  it  postponed  the  Second 
Advent  as  well  as  the  judgment  until  after  the  Millennium 
had  been  completed,  and  thus  antagonised  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  as  to  the  great  crisis.  This  latter  opinion  has  so  pre- 
vailed in  the  nineteenth  century  that  it  has  been  regarded  as 
orthodox,  owing  to  its  advocacy  by  leading  divines  in  British 
and  American  Churches. 

Both  of  these  serious  errors  should  be  banished,  with  the 
doctrine  of  a  particular  judgment  at  death,  as  all  alike  con- 
trary to  the  Scriptures  and  the  Creeds,  and  as  obstructions 
to  the  development  of  a  Biblical  and  Historical  Theology. 
The  Millennium  of  the  Scriptures  and  of  the  Fathers  is  not  an 
object  for  our  future  expectation.  The  Church  has  already 
enjoyed  that  experience  and  is  enjoying  it  now.  The  Millen- 
nium of  popular  conception  is  a  conceit  without  support  in  the 
Scriptures  or  in  the  Creeds.  The  crisis  that  we  are  to  look 
forward  to,  long  for,  watch  for  and  pray  for  is  the  Advent  of 
our  Lord  in  glory  and  judgment  at  the  end  of  the  Age,  to  glo- 
rify his  saints  and  perfect  his  kingdom.  In  modern  Eschatology 
the  Millennium  has  usurped  the  place  of  the  Middle  State. 

6.  The  divine  grace  is  imparted  by  the  sacraments  of  the 
Church.  The  Roman  Catholics  teach  that  all  who  have  not 
enjoyed  these  sacraments  are  excluded  from  heaven,  and  also 
from  purgatory.     Many  theologians  recognise,  however,  a 


THE  THEOLOGICAL   CRISIS   IN   AMERICA  341 

baptism  of  desire  for  those  who  would  be  baptised  if  they 
could  be.  It  is  difficult  for  strict  Lutherans  to  extend  redemp- 
tion beyond  the  bounds  of  the  Christian  Church  and  the  use 
of  the  means  of  grace.  The  Reformed  Churches  teach  that 
the  divine  grace  is  not  limited  to  the  ordinary  means,  and 
hence  the  Divine  Spirit  may  work  apart  from  the  Church  and 
its  ordinances,  and  so  it  is  possible  to  conceive  that  the  King- 
dom of  God  is  more  extensive  than  the  visible  Church.  But 
the  question  still  remains.  How  may  the  divine  grace  be  ap- 
propriated by  the  person  to  be  redeemed  ? 

The  Protestant  Reformation  made  an  important  advance 
in  the  History  of  Doctrine  by  its  definition  of  Justification  by 
Faith  only.  This  is  the  banner  doctrine  of  Protestantism,  the 
doctrine  by  which  the  Church  stands  or  falls.  The  Roman 
Catholics  confound  justification  and  sanctification.  They 
make  both  justification  and  sanctification  the  product  of  the 
sacraments  of  the  Church  in  this  life.  It  is  appropriated  by 
the  use  of  the  sacraments.  It  is  carried  on  in  the  Middle 
State  by  purgatorial  fires.  The  Protestants  separated  justi- 
fication from  sanctification,  and  represented  that  justification 
was  appropriated  by  jaith  alone,  and  not  through  the  bare  use 
of  the  sacraments.  They  taught  that  sanctification  was  the 
fruit  of  justification,  but  they  did  not  carefully  define  it.  It 
is  the  merit  of  the  Puritan  Reformation  that  it  defined  sancti- 
fication, repentance  and  the  doctrines  related  to  them.  These 
doctrines  were  considered  in  their  relation  to  this  life  and  the 
ultimate  state,  but  were  not  applied  to  the  Middle  State.  Cal- 
vinism remained  indifferent  to  the  question  of  the  Middle 
State,  because  it  was  content  to  leave  all  to  the  electing  grace 
of  God. 

Redemption  After  Death 

7.  But  Arminianism  and  Semi-Arminianism  could  not  be 
indifferent.  Daniel  Whitby  first  formulated  the  doctrine  of 
Probation  in  this  life,  in  his  attack  upon  the  Five  Points  of 
Calvinism;  and  Bishop  BuUer  gave  it  currency  among  all  the 
opponents  of  English  Deism,  so  that  it  has  been  largely  appro- 


342  CHURCH  UNITY 

priated  by  Calvinists,  and  has  in  many  respects  warped  Cal- 
vinistic  Theology/ 

The  doctrine  that  this  Hfe  is  a  probation  calls  attention  to 
the  fact,  that  it  is  so  in  reality  only  to  a  very  small  portion  of  our 
race.  And  if  the  redemption  of  a  part  depends  on  their  use 
of  their  probation,  how  can  those  be  saved  who  have  no  pro- 
bation at  all  ?  It  seems  necessary,  therefore,  to  extend  pro- 
bation for  these  into  the  Middle  State,  or  to  give  the  vast 
majority  of  mankind  over  to  the  devil.  Accordingly,  Whit- 
by taught  the  annihilation  of  the  wicked,^  and  Butler  consist- 
ently held  to  the  extension  of  probation  into  the  future  life.^ 
Other  probationists  must  either  follow  their  example  or  else 
abandon  the  doctrine  of  probation  altogether.  Arminians 
and  Semi-Arminians  must  in  the  end  take  one  of  these  two 
alternative  courses.  Arminians  and  Semi-Arminians,  who 
believe  in  the  doctrine  of  probation,  must  face  this  question. 
If  probation  is  to  be  extended  to  the  Middle  State,  they  must 
in  some  way  conceive  of  the  Gospel  extending  into  Hades, 
for  it  is  difficult  to  see  any  possibility  for  regeneration  there 
without  it.  Several  theories  have  been  proposed  to  overcome 
this  difficulty. 

(1)  Some  think  that  when  our  Saviour  preached  to  the  im- 
prisoned spirits  he  organised  those  whom  he  saved  into  a 
Church,  and  left  them  in  Abaddon  with  a  commission  to 
preach  his  Gospel  to  the  lost.  It  might  be  said  that  such  a 
mission  would  be  so  difficult  and  exacting  that  it  is  hard  to 
believe  that  the  Saviour  would  lay  it  upon  any  of  his  redeemed. 
And  yet  I  cannot  help  the  thought  that  there  have  been  and 
are  to-day.  Christians  who  would  be  willing  to  go  into  the 
depths  of  Abaddon  to  glorify  Christ  and  save  souls.  How 
much  more  those,  who  may  have  been  redeemed  by  Christ 
in  Abaddon  itself,  might  regard  it  as  a  privilege  to  labour  for 
him  in  this  prison  of  the  lost  I 

(2)  It  has  been  conjectured  that  hypocrites  and  others, 

'  Briggs'  Whither  ?  pp.  217  aeq. 

»  Commentaries,  II.  Thess.,  p.  391,  ed.  1710. 

'  Analogy,  I,  13,  II,  6. 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  CRISIS  IN  AMERICA  343 

who  know  the  Gospel,  but  have  no  saving  experience  of  it 
here,  may  recall  it  there  and  be  saved  by  it,  and  in  this  way 
become  the  preachers  of  Hades.  In  that  ingenious  book, 
Letters  from  Helly  the  author  suggests  that  hypocritical 
priests  and  people  assemble  in  Church  on  the  sabbaths  in 
Hell,  as  was  their  habit  in  this  worid,  and  that  they  are  tor- 
mented by  not  being  able  to  recall  the  Gospel  to  their  minds. 
It  seems  to  me  that  it  is  far  more  likely  that  the  larger  portion 
of  them  would  remember  it.  Such  a  paralysis  of  the  memory 
is  unpsychological.  The  lost  are  not  to  be  imbeciles  or 
madmen.  And  it  is  not  incredible  that  a  considerable  por- 
tion of  the  Bible  might  be  recovered  from  the  memories  of 
those  who  go  thither.  This  is  certainly  true  if  the  current 
opinions  in  the  Christian  Churches  are  true,  that  all  Heretics 
and  Jews  are  sent  there.  A  Hades  full  of  Protestants,  as 
the  Romanists  think,  could  hardly  be  without  the  Gospel. 
A  place  of  torment  where  Roman  Catholics  are  found  by  the 
hundreds  of  millions — popes,  archbishops,  monks,  nuns  and 
all — could  hardly  be  in  such  terrible  ignorance  of  Christ  and 
his  Word.  The  Old  Testament,  with  its  Messianic  promise, 
could  hardly  pass  from  the  minds  of  all  Jews.  Even  Unita- 
rians, Universalists  and  German  Rationalists  might  reason- 
ably recall  some  of  those  passages  of  the  New  Testament  that 
contain  in  them  the  sum  of  the  Gospel  and  are  called  by 
Luther  little  Bibles.  In  this  case  we  would  have  to  ask 
whether  the  Gospel  could  lose  its  power  there;  whether  it 
would  be  deprived  of  the  influence  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  and 
finally,  whether  all  those  who  have  gone  there  have  become 
so  hardened  as  to  be  incapable  of  faith  and  repentance  ? 

(3)  It  has  been  generally  thought  by  the  advocates  of  an 
extension  of  redemption  to  the  abode  of  the  lost,  that  the 
Saviour  might  commission  some  of  the  redeemed  of  this 
world  to  preach  his  Gospel  there.  It  is  true,  this  would  be  a 
difficult  and  hazardous  work  for  any  man  to  undertake.  It 
is  true  that  there  was  an  impassable  gulf  that  Abraham  and 
Lazarus  were  not  allowed  to  cross.  ^  But  this  did  not  prevent 
^  Luke  xvi.  26  /. 


344  CHURCH  UNITY 

our  Saviour  from  crossing  that  gulf  during  his  ministry  to 
the  underworld/  and  it  does  not  exclude  the  possibility  that 
he  might  bridge  that  chasm  for  the  heralds  of  redemption 
in  his  wondrous  love  for  lost  souls.  It  is  conceivable  that 
he  may  have  done  this.  The  difficulty  lies  not  in  the  ina- 
bility of  the  Messiah  to  send,  or  in  the  readiness  of  preachers 
to  go,  but  in  the  feasibility  of  the  work  itself. 

Many  in  the  early  Church  thought  this  work  feasible. 
The  Shepherd  of  Hermas  represents  the  apostles  and  martyrs 
as  carrying  on  the  preaching  of  Christ  in  Hades.  And,  in- 
deed, what  man  is  there,  who  has  a  spark  of  heroism,  who 
would  not  rather  work  for  Christ  among  the  lost  in  Hades,  if 
there  were  any  possibility  of  such  a  work,  than  to  pass  cen- 
turies in  a  dreamy  state  of  existence  in  Paradise,  or  live  a 
life  of  ease  and  selfish  gratification  in  the  heights  of  heaven  ? 
Far  better  to  work  in  Sheol  than  idle  in  heaven.  The  current 
views  of  the  state  of  blessedness  are  unethical  and  demoralis- 
ing. They  have  little  attraction  for  men  of  intellect  and 
power,  or  for  souls  on  fire  with  love  to  Christ  and  eager  for 
the  redemption  of  men.  If  we  cannot  serve  our  Saviour  in 
heaven  better  than  on  earth,  there  is  Uttle  to  attract  us  after 
death.  But,  thanks  be  unto  God,  we  know  that  we  may 
glorify  him  in  the  better  world.  We  may  share  the  aim  of 
Paul,  that  whether  in  heaven  or  on  earth  we  may  be  well- 
pleasing  to  him.^  There  are  inexhaustible  treasures  of  re- 
demption that  we  may  appropriate  for  ourselves,  and  that 
we  may  share  in  distributing  to  others. 

All  such  theories  of  redemption  of  lost  souls  after  death  are 
castles  in  the  air.  They  have  no  solid  ground  on  which  to 
rest.  They  are  not  so  dangerous  as  some  would  have  it; 
they  cannot  disturb  the  real  faith  of  the  Church.  They  may 
unsettle  those  who  see  the  crisis  for  mankind  in  the  event  of 
death.  And  they  will  render  real  service  if  they  should  de- 
stroy this  error  altogether.  They  may  expose  the  weakness 
of  the  current  Eschatology.  They  may  thus  be  a  blessing 
in  disguise.     For  the  real  faith  of  the  Church,  as  expressed 

» I  Peter  iii.  19;  iv.  6.  ^2  Cor.  v.  9. 


THE  THEOLOGICAL   CRISIS  IN   AMERICA  345 

in  the  Creeds  of  Christendom,  looks  forward,  now  as  in  the 
ages  of  the  past,  not  to  the  day  of  death  or  a  millennium,  but 
to  the  Second  Advent  of  the  Messiah  and  his  day  of  judgment, 
when  he  will  make  the  final  decision,  that  will  issue  in  ever- 
lasting ruin  to  some  wretched  creatures,  but  in  everlasting 
bliss  to  the  human  race  as  a  whole. 

Salvation  of  Infants  and  Heathen 

8.  In  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries  in  the  Luther- 
an, Anglican  and  Reformed  National  Churches,  the  entire 
population  belonged  to  the  Church  by  baptism,  and  the  great 
majority  by  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  National 
Churches  took  entire  possession  of  their  respective  countries, 
and  either  banished,  reduced  to  submission,  imprisoned  or 
put  to  death  dissenters.  The  conception  of  the  everlasting 
death  of  children  did  not  spring  into  the  mind  of  theologians 
or  the  people,  except  so  far  as  they  were  involved  in  the  ever- 
lasting damnation  of  the  heathen.  This  was  taken  as  a 
matter  of  course.  But  in  those  days  there  was  little  contact 
with  the  heathen,  and  the  mind  of  men  was  not  impressed 
with  this  awful  fact.  There  were  a  few  theologians,  such  as 
Zwingli  and  Coelius  Secundus  Curio,  who  held  that  the  grace 
of  God  extended  to  the  heathen.  But  at  that  time  theology 
did  not  confront  the  problem. 

The  development  of  Puritanism  in  the  seventeenth  century 
and  the  origination  of  a  large  number  of  sects  in  Holland 
and  Great  Britain,  such  as  Anabaptists,  Baptists,  Quakers, 
Unitarians,  Universalists,  Arminians;  and  the  new  circum- 
stances that  arose,  disclosing  thousands  and  millions  of  un- 
baptised  children  in  Christian  lands;  forced  the  question  of 
the  salvation  of  unbaptised  children  upon  the  attention  of 
theologians.  Furthermore,  the  result  of  the  religious  con- 
flicts in  Great  Britain  and  Holland  produced  a  large  class  of 
men  and  women  who  declined  communion  with  the  Churches 
in  the  way  of  Sacrament.  The  strict  rules  of  the  dissenting 
Churches,  excluding  all  but  those  who  would  comply  with 


346  CHURCH  UNITY 

their  rules,  and  changing  the  churches  into  a  multitude  of 
religious  clubs,  increased  the  number  of  the  population  who 
did  not  belong  to  the  Church  and  were  not  professing  Chris- 
tians. This  forced  the  ministry  to  consider  whether  these 
men  and  women,  many  of  them  leading  upright  lives,  were 
to  be  damned  in  Hell  forever.  In  the  eighteenth  century 
these  matters  came  before  the  mind  and  heart  of  Christians 
as  never  before.  The  result  of  these  things  has  been  a  grad- 
ual change  of  opinion  on  these  subjects,  and  the  recognition 
of  the  universal  salvation  of  infants,  and  the  admission  that 
men  may  be  saved  who  are  not  in  communion  with  the 
Church.  • 

The  present  century  brought  the  Church  of  Christ  face  to 
face  with  the  heathen  world .  Hundreds  of  millions  of  heathen 
stand  over  against  nominal  Christians  half  their  number. 
The  latter  must  be  reduced  by  multitudes  who  are  inhabitants 
of  Christian  lands,  but  who  do  not  profess  the  Faith  of  Christ. 
It  is  safe  to  say  that  there  are  not  one  hundred  millions  on 
the  earth  to-day  who  comply  with  the  methods  of  salvation 
taught  in  Christian  Churches.  The  damnation  of  these  mil- 
lions of  heathen,  who  have  never  heard  of  Christ,  and  millions 
of  nominal  Christians,  who  do  not  use  the  means  of  grace 
offered  them  by  the  Church,  is  an  awful  fact  for  the  Church 
to  confront  after  nearly  two  thousand  years  of  Christianity 
on  the  earth.  The  ministry  and  the  people  do  not  really  be- 
lieve that  these  multitudes  will  be  damned.  The  matter  is 
eased  a  little  by  the  theory  that  the  dying  infants  of  the 
heathen  are  saved,  and  some  of  the  best  of  heathen  adults 
may  attain  redemption;  but  the  great  mass  of  the  adult  popu- 
lation of  Asia  and  Africa — ^yes,  of  Europe  and  America  also — 
are  doomed  to  hell-fire  according  to  the  popiilar  theology. 
The  ministers  sometimes  preach  it,  and  the  people  listen  to 
this  doctrine  as  they  do  to  many  others,  but  they  are  not 
moved  by  it.  They  accept  it  as  orthodox  doctrine  without 
understanding  it;  but  they  do  not  really  believe  it  in  their 
hearts.  If  they  did  they  would  be  more  worthy  of  damna- 
tion than  the  heathen  themselves.     If  a  single  man  were  in 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  CRISIS  IN  AMERICA  347 

peril  of  physical  death,  the  whole  community  would  be 
aroused  to  save  him.  No  price  would  be  too  great.  Men 
and  women  would  cheerfully  risk  their  lives  to  save  him. 
Those  who  would  not  do  this  would  be  regarded  as  base  cow- 
ards. But  here,  according  to  the  average  missionary  sermon, 
are  untold  millions  of  heathen  perishing  without  the  Gospel, 
and  at  death  going  into  everlasting  fire.  Vast  multitudes  of 
unevangelised  persons  in  our  cities  and  towns  and  villages 
are  confronting  the  same  cruel  destiny.  If  the  ministry  and 
people  really  believed  it  they  would  pour  out  their  wealth  like 
water;  they  would  rush  in  masses  to  the  heathen  world  with 
the  Gospel  of  redemption.  There  would  be  a  new  crusade 
that  would  put  the  old  crusades  to  shame.  Those  who  have 
the  Gospel,  and  will  not  give  it  to  others  who  know  it  not, 
may  incur  a  worse  doom  in  the  day  of  judgment  than  the 
ignorant.  Those  who  knew  the  Lord's  will  and  did  it  not 
will  be  beaten  with  many  stripes;  those  who  knew  not  and  did 
things  worthy  of  stripes  with  few  stripes.^ 

The  difficulty  is  to  construct  a  doctrine  of  the  salvation 
of  infants  and  the  heathen,  in  harmony  with  established  doc- 
trines. The  Protestant  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  im- 
plies that  there  can  be  no  salvation  without  justification  on 
the  part  of  God,  and  faith  on  the  part  of  man.  No  orthodox 
Protestant  thought  of  justification  without  the  exercise  of 
personal  faith  on  the  part  of  the  justified.  There  must  be  an 
application  of  Jesus  Christ  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  every  one  to 
be  saved,  and  there  must  be  a  personal  appropriation  of  Jesus 
Christ  on  the  part  of  all  who  are  redeemed.  The  order  of 
Salvation  is  necessary  in  all  its  parts  for  every  child  of  God. 
Thus  the  Westminster  Confession  says: 

Those  whom  God  effectually  calleth  he  also  freely  justifieth  (xi.  1). 
.  .  .  All  those  that  are  justified,  God  vouchsafeth,  in  and  for  his  only 
Son,  Jesus  Christ,  to  make  partakers  of  the  grace  of  adoption  (xii.  1). 
.  .  .  They  who  are  effectually  called  and  regenerated,  having  a  new 
heart  and  a  new  spirit  created  in  them,  are  farther  sanctified  really 
and  personally  (xiii.  1).  .  .  .  They  whom  God  hath  accepted  in  his 

» Lk.  xii.  48. 


348  CHURCH  UNITY 

Beloved,  effectually  called  and  sanctified  by  his  Spirit,  can  neither 
totally  nor  finally  fall  ^way  from  the  state  of  grace;  but  shall  certainly 
persevere  therein  to  the  end,  and  be  eternally  saved  (xvii.  1). 

There  is  but  one  way  of  salvation  for  all,  one  ordo  salutis. 
There  is  but  one  kind  of  justification,  one  kind  of  sanetifica- 
tion,  one  kind  of  saving  faith,  and  one  kind  of  repentance 
unto  life.  The  modern  extension  of  the  doctrine  of  redemp- 
tion so  as  to  include  not  only  infants  of  believers,  but  all  in- 
fants; and  also  so  as  to  embrace  not  only  the  people  of  God 
under  the  Old  Covenant  and  the  people  of  God  who  accept  the 
New  Covenant,  but  also  multitudes  from  among  the  heathen, 
who  have  not  the  light  of  either  of  these  covenants,  but  only 
the  light  of  nature;  raises  the  question  how  these  can  be  saved 
consistently  with  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faith  and  the  Puritan  doctrine  of  sanctification. 

It  is  evident  that  the  orthodox  divines  of  the  seventeenth 
century  constructed  their  systems  of  doctrine  without  any 
conception  of  such  an  extension  of  redemption.  The  theory 
of  some  modern  theologians,  such  as  the  elder  and  younger 
Hodge,  that  infants  may  be  saved  without  personal  faith,  sub- 
verts the  fundamental  principle  of  Protestantism.  The  cur- 
rent unformulated  theory  that  heathen  may  be  saved  without 
acceptance  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  undermines  the  fun- 
damental principle  of  Christianity.  Christians  are  not  saved 
in  classes  or  masses,  but  as  individuals  out  of  the  mass  of  cor- 
ruption. It  is  anti-Christian  to  say  that  the  entire  race  of 
men  may  be  regarded  as  redeemed,  unless  it  is  expressly  said 
that  they  are  lost.  On  the  contrary,  the  Bible  and  the  Creeds 
teach  that  all  are  lost  unless  they  are  personally  redeemed  and 
experience  the  work  of  grace.  There  must  be  some  way  in 
which  infants,  incapables,  and  pious  men  beyond  the  bounds 
of  Christendom,  may  be  brought  into  contact  with  God  and 
His  Christ,  and  have  an  opportunity  to  believe  in  him;  or 
they  cannot  be  saved  in  accordance  with  the  teachings  of  the 
Scriptures  and  the  Symbols  of  Christendom.  Unless  this  can 
be  done.  Protestantism — ^yes,  the  entire  system  of  Christian 
doctrine,  breaks  down. 


THE  THEOLOGICAL   CRISIS   IN   AMERICA  349 

The  fault  of  modern  Protestantism  has  been  in  neglecting 
the  doctrine  of  salvation  as  a  whole,  with  its  ordo  salutis,  and 
in  thinking  too  exclusively  of  the  initial  steps.  Justification 
by  faith  was  too  exclusively  in  the  minds  of  the  early  Prot- 
estants, and  regeneration  is  unduly  prominent  in  American 
Protestant  Theology  since  the  rise  of  Methodism,  having 
taken  the  place  of  the  older  doctrine  of  Effectual  Calling.  It 
is  not  difficult  to  understand  that  the  Divine  Spirit  may  regen- 
erate all  the  elect  in  this  world,  and  plant  within  them  the 
seeds  of  faith  and  repentance,  so  that  redemption  may  have 
its  beginning  here  for  infants  and  incapables.  We  may  also 
see  this  faith  and  repentance  germinate  and  spring  up  under 
the  light  of  nature,  and  feel  after  God  and  His  Christ  in  many 
among  the  heathen;  but  the  redemption  thus  begun  must  in 
some  way  bring  them  to  Christ  in  order  that  they  may  have 
the  possession  and  enjoyment  of  salvation. 

From  the  Arminian  doctrine  of  probation  and  of  human 
responsibility  for  the  initiation  of  redemption,  the  first  steps 
of  regeneration  must  take  place  in  the  Intermediate  State  for 
all  these  persons,  or  not  at  all.  But  from  the  Calvinistic  posi- 
tion, which  makes  the  divine  grace  prevenient,  it  is  easy  to 
hold  that  every  elect  person  is  actually  regenerated  in  this 
life  before  he  leaves  the  world.  It  seems  that  the  birth  of 
little  children  into  this  world  would  have  little  significance  if 
they  were  not  to  have  their  regeneration  here  also.  They 
must  be  born  as  children  of  Adam  to  take  part  in  the  ruin  of 
the  race,  and  it  would  seem  that  only  the  children  of  Adam 
have  a  share  in  the  Saviour  of  the  race.  From  this  point  of 
view,  Calvinism  ought  to  have  no  hesitation  in  advancing  into 
the  doctrine  of  the  Middle  State.  The  salvation  which  is 
begun  here  by  regeneration  is  carried  on  there.  For  the  vast 
majority  of  our  race  who  die  in  infancy,  or  have  lived  beyond 
the  range  of  the  means  of  grace,  their  salvation,  begun  in  this 
life  by  regeneration,  is  carried  on  in  the  Intermediate  State 
with  the  exercise  of  personal  faith  in  Christ,  whom  they  know 
there  for  the  first.  There  the  germs  of  faith  and  repentance, 
that  have  been  put  in  their  hearts  in  regeneration  by  the  Holy 


350  CHURCH  UNITY 

Spirit,  spring  up  in  the  sunlight  of  Christ's  own  face,  and  lay 
hold  of  him  as  their  Saviour.  Not  till  then  are  they  justified, 
for  there  can  be  no  justification  without  faith  for  them,  any 
more  than  for  others.  The  Intermediate  State  is  for  them  a 
state  of  blessed  possibilities  of  redemption.  This  is  beauti- 
fully expressed  in  a  hymn  of  Ephraim,  the  Syrian,  translated 
by  Professor  Gilbert: 

"  Our  God,  to  Thee  sweet  praises  rise 
From  youthful  lips  in  Paradise; 
From  boys  fair  robed  in  spotless  white, 
And  nourished  in  the  courts  of  light. 
In  arbors  they,  where  soft  and  low 
The  blessed  streams  of  light  do  flow: 
And  Gabriel,  a  shepherd  strong, 
Doth  gently  guide  their  flocks  along. 
Their  honors  higher  and  more  fair 
Than  those  of  saints  and  virgins  are; 
God's  sons  are  they  on  that  far  coast, 
And  nurselings  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

The  Intermediate  State  is,  therefore,  for  a  considerable 
portion  of  our  race  a  state  for  the  consummation  of  their 
justification.  The  Protestant  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith 
alone  forces  to  this  position. 

Progressive  Sanctification  after  Death 

9.  But  justification  by  faith  belongs  to  the  earlier  stages  of 
redemption.  All  those  who  are  justified  are  also  sanctified. 
No  one  can  be  ultimately  and  altogether  redeemed  without 
sanctification.  It  is  necessary  that  believers  should  have 
the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  they  should  be 
"more  and  more  quickened  and  strengthened  in  all  saving 
graces  to  the  practice  of  true  holiness,  without  which  no 
man  shall  see  the  Lord";  and  "so  the  saints  grow  in  grace, 
perfecting  holiness  in  the  fear  of  God."  The  doctrine  of 
immediate  sanctification  is  a  heresy,  which  has  always  been 
rejected  by  orthodox  Protestants.  The  Westminster  Con- 
fession definitely  states:   "This  sanctification  is  throughout. 


THE  THEOLOGICAL   CRISIS  IN   AMERICA  351 

yet  imperfect  in  this  life."-  If  imperfect  in  this  life  for  all 
believers,  there  is  no  other  state  in  which  it  can  be  perfected 
save  in  the  Intermediate  State.  The  Intermediate  State  is, 
therefore,  for  all  believers  without  exception  a  state  for  their 
sanctification.  They  are  there  trained  in  the  school  of  Christ, 
and  are  prepared  for  the  Christian  perfection  which  they 
must  attain  ere  the  judgment  day. 

I  am  well  aware  that  it  has  been  a  common  opinion  that 
believers  are  at  their  death — that  is,  in  the  very  moment  of 
death,  completely  sanctified.  This  opinion  seems  to  be 
favoured  by  the  statement  of  the  Westminster  Shorter  Cate- 
chism— "The  souls  of  believers  are  at  their  death  made  per- 
fect in  holiness."^  This  is  one  of  a  number  of  instances  in 
which  the  Shorter  Catechism  by  its  brief,  unguarded  state- 
ments has  occasioned  error.  The  Larger  Catechism  is 
fuller  and  clearer  when  it  says:  "The  communion  in  glory 
with  Christ,  which  the  members  of  the  invisible  Church  en- 
joy immediately  after  death,  is  in  that  their  souls  are  then 
made  perfect  in  holiness,  and  received  into  the  highest  heav- 
ens, where  they  behold  the  face  of  God  in  light  and  glory.  "^ 
The  phrase,  "immediately  after  death,"  is  the  phrase  of  the 
question:  "What  is  the  communion  in  glory  with  Christ 
which  the  members  of  the  invisible  Church  enjoy  immediately 
after  death  f  and  it  is  designed  to  cover  the  entire  period  of 
the  Intermediate  State  as  distinguished  from  the  state  of 
resurrection,  and  it  is  not  limited  to  the  moment  after  death, 
in  which  the  Intermediate  State  has  its  beginning.  This  is 
clear  from  Question  82,  where  the  general  question,  "What 
is  the  communion  in  glory  which  the  members  of  the  invisible 
Church  have  with  Christ?"  is  answered  in  the  following 
three  divisions  of  condition,  which  appear  in  three  questions 
that  follow:  "The  communion  in  glory,  which  the  members 
of  the  invisible  Church  have  with  Christ,  is  in  this  life,  im- 
mediately after  death,  and  at  last  perfected  at  the  resurrection 
and  day  of  judgment."  It  ought  to  be  clear  to  any  one  that^ 
having  made  sanctification  a  work  of  God^s  grace  and  a 
>  Quest.  37.  *  Quest.  86. 


352  CHURCH  UNITY 

growth  extending  through  the  entire  Hfe  of  the  beUever  and 
left  incomplete  at  death;  and  that,  having  denied  the  doctrine 
of  immediate  sanctification;  the  Westminster  divines  could  not 
be  so  inconsistent  as  to  teach  that  at  the  moment  of  death, 
occurring  at  various  stages  in  the  growth  of  holiness,  sancti- 
fication then  changed  its  nature,  ceased  to  be  a  progressive 
work,  a  growth,  and  became  immediate,  an  act  of  God,  like 
justification.  This  would  be  to  undermine  the  Protestant 
doctrine  of  sanctification.  It  is  essential  to  the  integrity  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  and  Protestant  systems  of  Faith  alike, 
that  they  should  resist  the  Antinomian  doctrines  of  eternal 
justification  without  faith,  and  of  immediate  sanctification 
at  any  time  or  in  any  state  or  place. 

There  are  some  theologians  who  persuade  themselves  that 
they  can  believe  in  the  immediate  justification  and  the  im- 
mediate sanctification  of  infants,  of  incapables  and  of  heathen 
adults  in  the  change  of  death,  in  that  supreme  moment  of 
transition  from  this  life  to  the  Middle  State.  Such  a  theory 
may  be  stated  in  words,  but  it  is  inconceivable  in  fact. 
What  a  transformation  would  take  place  in  the  intellectual 
and  moral  powers  of  infants,  incapables  and  the  dark-minded 
heathen!  Such  a  metamorphosis  is  not  taught  in  the  Scrip- 
tures or  the  Creeds.  It  would  violate  the  intellectual  and 
moral  constitution  of  man.  Those  who  believe  it  may  claim 
that  all  things  are  possible  to  God.  But  it  is  diflScult  to 
understand  how  it  could  be  possible  even  for  God  to  make 
the  immediate  transformation  of  a  little  babe  into  a  perfectly 
holy  man  in  the  image  of  Jesus  Christ;  or  of  the  instantaneous 
accomplishment  of  the  entire  ordo  scdiUis  for  an  idiot  in  the 
very  moment  of  death.  Such  a  magical  doctrine  is  sub- 
versive of  the  entire  structure  of  Christianity.  It  belongs 
to  an  age  of  magic,  and  has  no  place  in  an  age  of  Reason  and 
Faith,  and  is  altogether  unmoral. 

It  was  a  keen  thrust  of  Mohler,  that  Protestantism  with- 
out a  purgatory  must  either  let  men  enter  heaven  stained  with 
sin,  or  else  think  of  an  immediate  magical  transformation 
at  death,  by  which  sin  mechanically  and  violently  falls  off 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  CRISIS  IN   AMERICA  353 

from  us  with  the  body.  Hase  justly  replied  that  Protestant- 
ism would  not  accept  this  dilemma,  and  that  Protestant 
Theology  taught  that  the  divine  grace  was  operative  and 
men  capable  of  moral  development  after  death.  This  view 
is  the  established  opinion  in  German  Theology.  Dorner, 
Martensen,  Kahnis  and  many  other  later  divines  teach  that 
there  must  be  a  growth  in  sanctification  in  the  Middle  State. 
All  Protestants  must  accept  this  doctrine,  or  they  are  sure  to 
be  caught  in  the  inconsistency  of  magical,  mechanical  and 
unethical  opinions.  This  opinion  is  commonly  held  by 
Protestants  in  Great  Britain.  Why  should  Protestants  in 
America  lag  behind  their  brethren  in  Europe?  They  have 
been  caught  in  the  snares  of  recent  errors.  Let  them  break 
through  the  snares  and  re-establish  themselves  in  the  ancient 
Christian  doctrine  of  the  Middle  State. 

10.  The  deeper  ethical  sense  in  German  Theology  since 
Kant,  forced  divines  to  distinguish  grades  of  sin  and  guilt 
and  punishment,  and  to  study  as  never  before  the  psychologi- 
cal origin  of  sin  and  its  development  in  human  nature.  At- 
tention was  thus  called  to  the  words  of  Jesus  that  the  sin 
against  the  Holy  Spirit  was  the  only  eternal  sin,  the  only  un- 
pardonable transgression.^  This  sin  is  not  only  unpardon- 
able in  this  age,  but  also  in  the  age  to  come.  This  raises  the 
question  whether  any  man  is  irretrievably  lost  ere  he  commits 
this  unpardonable  sin;  and  whether  those  who  do  not  commit 
it  in  this  world  ere  they  die  are,  by  the  mere  crisis  of  death, 
brought  into  an  unpardonable  state;  and  whether,  when 
Jesus  said  that  this  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit  was  unpardon- 
able here  and  also  hereafter,  he  did  not  imply  that  all  other 
sins  might  be  pardoned  hereafter  as  well  as  here.  This  con- 
clusion was  reached  by  Nitzsch,  Tholuck,  Julius  Miiller, 
Martensen,  Dorner,  Schaff  and  many  others. 

The  doctrine  of  immediate  justification  and  sanctification 
at  death  involves  the  conceit  that  the  child  who  dies  in  infancy 
a  few  moments  after  birth  is  immediately  justified  and  sancti- 

*Mt.  xii.  22-32;  Mk.  iii.  22-30;  Lk.  (xii:  10);  see,  Messiah  of  the 
Gospels,  pp.  179-181. 


354  CHURCH  UNITY 

fied,  receives  saving  faith  and  all  the  Christian  graces  in  an 
instant;  while  his  brother,  who  lives  in  this  world,  is  not 
justified  until  he  reaches  the  age  in  which  he  can  exercise 
personal  faith;  and  then  he  has  all  the  struggles  of  life  to 
undergo,  until  he  reaches  the  limits  of  human  life  without  the 
comforts  of  sanctification,  which  he  cannot  receive  until  death. 
If  this  were  so,  then  Blessed  are  those  who  die  in  infancy,  and 
thus  outstrip  their  fellows  in  the  Christian  race.  Vasdy  bet- 
ter to  be  bom  to  die  than  to  be  born  to  live  in  this  uncertain 
world.  What  parent  would  not  prefer  to  lay  all  his  children 
in  an  early  grave,  assured  of  their  salvation,  rather  than  ex- 
pose them  to  the  dreadful  risks  of  life  and  the  possibility  of 
eternal  damnation  ?  According  to  the  current  beliefs,  those 
Chinese  mothers  who  put  their  children  to  death  make  more 
Christians  than  all  the  missionaries. 

Overcome  with  such  reflections,  we  might  express  our 
misery  in  the  complaint  of  Job. 

Why  died  I  not  from  the  womb  ? 

Why  did  I  not  give  up  the  ghost  when  I  came  from  the  belly  ? 

Why  did  the  knees  receive  me  ? 

Or  why  the  breasts,  that  I  should  suck  ? 

For  now  would  I  have  lain  down  and  been  quiet, 

I  would  have  slept;  then  had  I  been  at  rest. 

(Job  iii.  11-13.) 

The  Christian  doctrine  of  sanctification  forces  us  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  Middle  State  is  now  and  has  ever  been 
the  school  of  Christian  Sanctification.  The  common  Roman 
Catholic  doctrine  of  purgatory  is  a  perversion  of  the  true 
doctrine.  It  is  mechanical  and  unethical,  like  other  pe- 
culiar doctrines  of  Roman  Catholic  dogmaticians  and  popular 
superstititions.  But  it  is  better  than  a  blank  agnosticism. 
There  is  much  truth  and  some  comfort  in  the  midst  of  its 
errors,  and  it  has  profound  consolation  to  offer  to  the  be- 
reaved and  penitent.  Here  is  one  of  its  greatest  strongholds. 
It  is  less  mechanical  and  less  unethical  than  the  theory  that  has 
prevailed  among  Protestants  that  there  is  both  immediate  jus- 
tification and  immediate  sanctification  in  the  article  of  death. 


THE  THEOLOGICAL   CRISIS   IN   AMERICA  355 

The  doctrines  associated  with  Christian  sanctification  lead 
to  similar  results.  Are  the  experiences  of  saving  faith,  assur- 
ance of  grace  and  salvation,  religious  worship,  the  communion 
of  saints,  confined  to  a  few  adult  Christians  in  this  life  ?  Have 
they  no  meaning  for  the  vast  majority  of  the  redeemed? 
Rather  for  the  best  of  Christians  the  sublime  truth  and  com- 
fort involved  in  these  doctrines  are  not  realised  until  they 
enter  upon  the  Middle  State. 

Those  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  immediate  sanctification  at 
death  do  not  really  understand  the  Protestant  doctrine  of 
sanctification  and  the  principles  of  Christian  Ethics.  Regen- 
eration is  an  act  of  God,  and  from  its  very  idea  is  instantane- 
ous, for  it  is  the  production  of  a  new  life  in  man.  Regeneration 
is  only  one  of  the  terms  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  describe 
this  beginning  of  Christian  life.  Resurrection  is  more  fre- 
quently used.  Creation  is  also  employed.  Effectual  Calling 
was  preferred  by  the  Westminster  divines.  All  these  terms 
indicate  a  divine  originating  act.  Regeneration  is  always 
such,  and  dknnot  be  otherwise.  But  sanctification  is  the 
growth  of  that  life  from  birth  to  full  manhood,  to  the  likeness 
of  Christ.  It  is  always  in  this  world  a  growth;  it  is  incomplete 
with  the  best  of  men  at  death.  Does  it  change  its  nature 
then?  Shall  the  little  babe,  the  idiot,  the  seeker  after  God 
among  the  heathen,  the  Roman  Catholic,  the  Protestant,  and 
the  saints  of  all  ages,  all  alike  in  an  instant  leap  over  this 
period  of  growth,  however  different  the  stage  of  progress 
may  be?  Shall  a  babe  become  a  man  in  an  instant?  Shall 
a  savage  become  a  philosopher  in  a  moment?  Shall  a  little 
boy  become  an  Augustine,  and  a  John  Calvin  be  conformed 
to  the  image  of  Christ,  all  at  a  divine  creative  word  ?  Then 
the  difference  between  regeneration  and  sanctification  has 
disappeared  for  the  vast  majority  of  the  redeemed. 

If  regeneration  and  sanctification  are  one  act,  how  can  we 
distinguish  the  intervening  act  of  justification ;  and  if  regen- 
eration, justification  and  sanctification  may  all  be  one  at 
death,  why  not  in  this  life,  as  the  Plymouth  brethren  teach  ? 
Why  was  the  world  turned  upside  down  at  the  Protestant 


356  CHURCH  UNITY 

Reformation  in  order  to  discriminate  justification  by  faith 
from  sanctification  if,  after  all  these  centuries  of  Protestantism, 
they  are  really  identical  for  the  vast  majority  of  our  race,  and 
are  only  to  be  distinguished  in  those  who  live  to  maturity  and 
become  true  Christians  ?  Then  Protestantism  would  be  not 
only  a  failure,  but  also  one  of  the  greatest  crimes  in  history. 
This  is  the  pit  of  ruin  into  which  the  dogmatic  divines  of  our 
day  would  force  us  rather  than  extend  the  light  of  redemption 
into  the  Middle  State. 

Those  divines  who  confound  sanctification  with  justification 
do  not  understand  the  principles  of  sanctification  and  Christian 
Ethics.  Sanctification  has  two  sides — mortification  and  vivi- 
fication ;  the  former  is  manward,  the  latter  is  Godward.  Be- 
lievers who  enter  the  Middle  State  enter  sinless;  they  are  par- 
doned and  justified ;  they  are  mantled  in  the  blood  and  right- 
eousness of  Christ;  and  nothing  will  be  able  to  separate  them 
from  his  love.  They  are  also  delivered  from  all  temptations 
such  as  spring  from  without,  from  the  world  and  the  devil. 
They  are  encircled  with  influences  for  good  such  as  they  have 
never  enjoyed  before.  But  they  are  still  the  same  persons, 
with  all  the  gifts  and  graces  and  also  all  the  evil  habits  of 
mind,  disposition  and  temper  they  had  when  they  left  the 
world.  It  is  unpsychological  to  suppose  that  these  will  all  be 
changed  in  the  moment  of  death.  It  is  the  Manichean  heresy 
to  hold  that  sin  belongs  to  the  physical  organisation  and  is 
laid  aside  with  the  body.  If  this  were  so,  how  can  any  of  our 
race  carry  their  evil  natures  with  them  into  the  Middle  State 
and  incur  the  punishment  of  their  sins  ? 

The  Plymouth  Brethren  hold  that  there  are  two  natures  in 
the  redeemed,  the  old  man  and  the  new.  In  accordance  with 
such  a  theory,  the  old  man  might  be  cast  off  at  death.  But 
this  is  only  a  more  subtile  kind  of  Manicheism,  which  has  ever 
been  regarded  as  heretical.  Sin,  as  our  Saviour  teaches,  has  its 
source  in  the  heart,  in  the  higher  and  immortal  part  of  man.* 
It  is  the  work  of  sanctification  to  overcome  sin  in  the  higher 
nature.  We  may  jusdy  hold  that  the  evil  that  lingers  in  the 
'  Mt.  xii.  35;  xv.  18-20 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  CRISIS   IN  AMERICA  357 

higher  moral  nature  of  believers  will  be  suppressed  and  modi- 
fied with  an  energy  of  repentance,  humiliation,  confession 
and  determination  that  will  be  more  powerful  than  ever  be- 
fore, because  it  will  be  stimulated  by  the  presence  of  Christ 
and  his  saints.  The  Christian  graces  will  unfold  under  more 
favourable  circumstances  than  in  this  world.  If  it  were  pos- 
sible that  sanctification  at  death  would  make  men  so  perfect 
in  holiness  as  to  remove  all  evil  tendencies  and  habits;  and  not 
only  destroy  their  disposition  to  sin,  but  so  lift  them  above 
temptation  that  they  would  be  like  our  Saviour  during  his 
earthly  life,  yosse  non  peccare;  and  also  like  our  Saviour  after 
he  had  sanctified  himself  and  risen  victor  over  sin,  death 
and  Satan,  and  attained  the  position  of  non  posse  peccare; 
even  then  they  would  only  have  accomplished  the  negative 
side  of  sanctification,  the  mortification  or  entire  putting  to 
death  the  old  man  of  sin.  They  would  still  have  to  undergo 
the  process  of  vivification  and  learn  the  practice  of  true 
holiness. 

What  practice  have  infants  and  imbeciles  when  they  enter 
the  Middle  State  ?  How  far  short  in  practice  do  the  best  of 
men  fall  ?  Are  they  no  longer  to  have  an  opportunity  for  the 
practice  of  true  holiness?  Will  there  be  no  chance  to  learn 
what  true  holiness  is  ?  The  Middle  State  must,  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  case,  be  a  school  of  sanctification. 

11.  It  was  a  profound  saying  of  Henry  B.  Smith  that  Escha- 
tology  ought  to  be  Christologised.  It  is  greatly  to  be  regretted 
that  he  did  not  turn  his  own  attention  to  that  theme  and  give 
us  the  fruit  of  his  investigations.  Dr.  Schaff  gave  his  attention 
to  this  subject  many  years  ago  in  his  book  on  the  Sin  against 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  has  added  not  a  few  valuable  hints  in  his 
later  publications. 

Christ  is  the  mediator  between  God  and  man  in  the  exer- 
cise of  his  offices  as  prophet,  priest  and  king.  Those  who 
passed  a  few  years  in  this  world,  and  then  went  into  the  Mid- 
dle State  and  have  been  there  for  centuries,  have  not  passed 
beyond  the  need  of  his  mediation.  The  interval  between 
death  and  the  judgment  has  its  lessons  and  its  training  for 


358  CHURCH   UNITY 

them  as  well  as  for  us.  The  prophetic  office  of  Christ  con- 
tinues to  those  who  are  in  the  Middle  State.  After  his  own 
death  he  went  to  the  abode  of  the  departed  spirits,  and 
preached  unto  them  his  Gospel.  He  ascended  into  heaven, 
taking  his  redeemed  with  him.  All  those  whom  he  has  pur- 
chased with  his  blood  ascend  to  him  to  abide  with  him.  The 
redeemed  robber  is  not  the  only  one  to  whom  he  has  some- 
thing to  say  in  the  Middle  State.  ^  All  believers  enter  his  school 
and  are  trained  in  the  mysteries  of  his  kingdom.  Those  mys- 
teries are  not  cleared  up  by  a  flash  of  revelation;  they  are  re- 
vealed as  the  redeemed  are  able  to  apprehend  them  and  use 
them.  It  is  improbable  that  Augustine,  Calvin  and  Luther 
will  be  found  in  the  same  class-room  as  the  redeemed  negro 
slave  or  the  babe  that  has  entered  heaven  to-day.  The  Fath- 
ers and  doctors  of  the  Church  will  be  the  teachers  of  the 
dead,  as  they  taught  the  living. 

Christ's  priestly  office  continues  for  them.  They  who  enter 
the  Middle  State  still  need  his  blood  and  righteousness.  Even 
if  they  commit  no  positive  sin  they  do  not  reach  positive  per- 
fection until  their  sanctification  has  been  completed  in  the 
attainment  of  the  complete  likeness  of  Christ.  They  need  the 
robe  of  Christ's  righteousness  until  they  have  gained  one  of 
their  own.  He  is  still  their  surety,  who  has  engaged  with 
them  and  with  God  to  present  them  perfect  in  the  last  great 
day. 

But,  above  all,  Christ  is  a  king  in  the  Intermediate  State. 
Here  in  this  world  his  reign  is  only  partial;  there  it  is  com- 
plete. Here  his  kingdom  is  interwoven  with  the  kingdom  of 
darkness.  There  it  is  apart  from  all  evil  and  hindrance.  His 
reign  is  entire  over  his  saints,  and  they  are  being  prepared  by 
him  for  the  advent  in  which  they  will  come  with  him  to  reign 
over  the  world. 

The  Church  is  chiefly  in  the  Intermediate  State.     The 

Church  on  earth  is  only  the  vestibule  of  it.    In  this  world  we 

have  learned  to  know  in  part  the  Messiah  of  the  Cross;  there 

in  the  Middle  State  the  redeemed  know  the  glory  of  the  Mes- 

» Lk.  xxiii.  42-43. 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  CRISIS  IN  AMERICA  359 

siah  of  the  Throne.  There  the  Church  is  in  its  purity  and 
complete  organisation,  as  the  bride  of  the  Lamb.  There 
Christ  the  head,  and  his  body  the  Church  are  in  blessed  unity. 
We  have  glimpses  in  the  Apocalypse  of  the  vast  assemblies  of 
the  saints  in  heaven  about  the  throne  of  the  Lamb.*  And  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  gives  us  a  picture  of  their  organised 
assembly  on  the  heights  of  the  heavenly  Zion.^  It  is  important 
for  the  Church  on  earth  to  have  a  better  apprehension  of  its 
relations  to  the  Church  in  the  Middle  State.  The  Protestant 
branch  of  Christendom  is  weaker  here  than  the  Roman 
Catholic.  It  is  high  time  to  overcome  this  defect,  for  it  is  not 
merely  agnosticism,  it  is  sin  against  the  mysteries  of  our  re- 
ligion. The  modern  Church  ought  to  return  to  the  faith  of 
the  ancient  Church,  and  believe  in  the  "Communion  of 
Saints." 

12.  We  have  developed  the  doctrine  of  the  Middle  State  in 
the  light  of  other  established  Christian  doctrines.  If  the 
Church  has  rightly  defined  these,  then  it  results  from  them 
that  we  must  take  that  view  of  the  Middle  State  that  they 
suggest.  If  we  are  not  prepared  to  do  this  we  cast  doubt  upon 
the  legitimacy  and  competency  of  these  doctrines.  We  con- 
fess them  inadequate  and  insufficient.  The  Augustinian  prin- 
ciple that  salvation  is  by  the  divine  grace,  and  that  this  grace  is 
ever  prevenient,  enables  us  to  believe  that  the  or  do  salutis  be- 
gins for  all  who  are  saved,  by  the  regeneration  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  this  life.  This  regeneration  begets  the  seeds  of  a  per- 
fect Christian  life.  For  some  the  ordo  salutis  makes  no  fur- 
ther advance  in  this  life;  for  others  it  advances  in  different 
degrees  and  stages;  but  for  all  the  redeemed,  the  Middle  State 
is  of  vast  importance,  as  the  state  in  which  our  redemption  is 
taken  up  where  it  is  left  incomplete  in  this  life,  and  then  carried 
on  to  its  perfection.  This  view  of  the  Middle  State  gives  it 
its  true  theological  importance.  It  enables  us  to  look  forward 
with  hope  and  joy  for  an  entrance  upon  it.  This  life  is  an 
introduction  to  it.  It  mediates  between  death  and  the  resur- 
rection, and  prepares  for  the  ultimate  blessedness. 

*Rev,  V.  11-14;  vii.  9-17.  «Heb,  xiU  22-24. 


360  CHURCH  UNITY 


The  Lost 

We  have  thus  far  considered  only  the  redeemed.  Those 
who  do  not  belong  to  that  company  also  enter  into  the  Middle 
State.  But  their  place  is  a  different  one.  It  is  represented 
as  a  prison,  a  place  of  destruction  and  torment  before  the 
resurrection  of  Christ,  in  which  they  are  reserved  for  the  day 
of  judgment.  There  is  a  silence  on  the  fate  of  the  wicked  in 
the  Middle  State  since  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  that  is  pro- 
found and  unbroken  in  the  New  Testament.  There  are  some 
who  hold  that  there  is  a  possibility  of  release  from  the  prison 
house  to  join  the  company  of  the  blessed.  Such  a  hope 
would,  indeed,  be  a  comfort  if  it  could  be  indulged  for  all 
mankind.  But  there  seems  to  be  no  solid  basis  on  which  to 
rest  it.  The  grace  of  God  is  so  grand  and  glorious  in  its 
wonders  of  redemption  that  we  may  rest  upon  that  as  the 
solid  rock  of  comfort.  We  gain  more  hope  here  than  we  can 
get  from  any  other  source  whatsoever.  We  may  be  certain 
that  when  the  final  verdict  has  been  rendered,  we  shall  not  be 
surprised  that  so  many  were  not  saved.  But  we  shall  rejoice 
at  the  wonderful  extent  and  rfchness  of  the  redemptive  love 
of  God  in  the  unexpected  multitudes  of  the  blessed.  And 
these  will  be  not  chiefly  babes  and  imbeciles,  but  men  and 
women  who  have  undergone  hardships  in  this  life,  and  have 
overcome  in  its  trials  and  temptations. 

If  we  could  find  evidence  in  the  Scriptures  that  there  was 
any  possibility  of  the  extension  of  the  benefits  of  regeneration 
and  the  efficacy  of  the  means  of  grace  into  the  abode  of  the 
lost,  we  should  be  glad  to  follow  it.  Or  if  we  could  see  any 
evidence  from  other  Christian  doctrines  that  would  lead  to 
such  a  hope,  we  would  gladly  embrace  it.  The  Scriptures  are 
not  so  decidedly  against  it  as  many  suppose.  The  one  pas- 
sage with  reference  to  Dives*  is  not  decisive  for  the  present 
dispensation,  and  therefore  does  not  shut  the  door  of  hope. 
The  preaching  of  Jesus  to  the  spirits  in  prison^  is  not  decisive 

»Lk.  xvi.  19-31.  « I  Peter  iii.  18-20;  iv.  6. 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  CRISIS  IN   AMERICA  361 

for  the  present  dispensation,  and  therefore  does  not  open  the 
door  for  a  larger  hope.  Jesus  by  his  resurrection  made  a 
change  in  the  abode  of  the  dead  by  taking  some  of  them  at 
least  with  him  from  Hades  to  Heaven.  We  do  not  know 
what  changes  have  been  made  in  Hades  in  other  re- 
spects.* 

The  term  "eternal  punishment**^  is  not  so  decisive  as  many 
suppose.  The  words  in  Hebrew  and  Greek  translated 
"eternal"  have  not  that  meaning  of  absolute  limitless  dura- 
tion, that  dogmaticians  put  into  them.  They  mean  very 
much  what  the  English  word  ever  means;  and  they  are  most 
commonly  used  for  long  but  indefinite  time,  which  yet  may 
have  and  often  does  have  a  limit. ^  From  the  point  of  view  of 
the  divine  sovereignty,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  it  is  possible  to 
make  the  existence  in  time  of  any  creature  independent  of 
the  divine  will.  All  that  eternal  punishment  can  mean  is, 
that  it  will  endure  a  long  indefinite  time,  so  long  as  it  may 
please  God,  and  no  longer. 

Jesus  teaches  that  future  punishment  will  be  proportionate 
to  guilt. 

And  that  servant,  who  knew  his  lord's  will,  and  made  not  ready,  nor 
did  according  to  his  will,  shall  be  beaten  with  many  stripes;  but  he  that 
knew  not,  and  did  things  worthy  of  stripes,  shall  be  beaten  with  few 
stripes.    {Lk.  xii.  47-48.) 

As  I  have  elsewhere  said: 

The  parable  has  in  view  the  Messianic  judgment  at  the  end  of  the  age. 
This  difference  of  punishment,  involved  between  many  stripes  and  few, 
is  not  a  difference  of  punishment  in  the  Middle  State  after  death:  it  is 
a  difference  of  degree  of  punishment  in  the  Day  of  Judgment,  and  in  the 
age  that  follows  that  judgment  in  the  Final  State.  How  are  we  to  con- 
ceive these  few  stripes  as  compared  with  the  many?  In  Gehenna,  are 
the  stripes  few  in  character,  or  of  less  degree  of  punishment,  everlasting 

'  See  Briggs'  Messiah  of  the  Apostles,  pp.  530  /. 

»Mt.  XXV.  46. 

'  See  in  Hebrew  and  English  Lexicon,  Robinson-Gesenius,  new  edition 
by  Brown,  Driver  and  Briggs,  my  article  on  the  word  oSij;  ;  also  in 
Thayer's  edition  of  Grimm's  Greek-English  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testamentt 
the  article  on  aldv. 


362  CHITRCH  UNITY 

in  duration  but  less  intensive  in  degree  of  suffering;  or  less  in  the  num- 
ber of  the  blows,  so  that  the  punishment  of  the  less  guilty  comes  to  an 
end  before  the  punishment  of  the  more  guilty  ?  This  opens  up  a  field  for 
speculation  where  we  can  only  say  that  all  everiasting  duration  is  subject 
to  such  limitations  as  God  in  his  sovereign  reserved  right  may  deem  best 
to  put  upon  it.    {Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  p.  223.) 

The  Arminian  doctrine  of  Probation  forces  all  those  who 
believe  in  it,  to  extend  that  probation  into  the  Intermediate 
State.  Sooner  or  later  they  will  do  it.  But  the  Calvinistic 
system  is  in  a  very  different  position.  The  Calvinistic  system 
solves  the  difficulties  in  another  way.  It  does  not  limit 
the  grace  of  God  by  human  ability  or  inability.  And  yet 
there  is  nothing  in  Calvinism  itself  that  prevents  the  extension 
of  redemption  into  a  future  life.  In  point  of  fact,  Universal- 
ism  sprang  out  of  an  extreme  form  of  Calvinism.  The  grace 
of  God  might  work  in  Hades  as  well  as  in  this  world.  Re- 
generation might  take  place  there  as  well  as  here,  with  or 
without  the  use  of  the  means  of  grace.  But  we  cannot  escape 
the  consideration  that  no  one  goes  to  Hades  who  has  not  been 
previously  in  this  world,  where  the  work  of  regeneration  might 
have  been  wrought  without  waiting  for  the  Middle  State.  If 
multitudes  of  infants  and  imbeciles  are  regenerated  before 
departing  from  this  life,  why  not  also  all  others  who  are  to  be 
redeemed  ? 

Let  us  heed  the  Saviour's  warning,  "  Judge  not  that  ye  be 
not  judged."  ^  We  should  cease  damning  our  fellow-men  and 
sending  them  to  hell,  for  differences  of  doctrine,  of  polity  and 
of  mode  of  worship.  Certainly  if  it  rested  with  men,  few 
of  us  would  ever  see  heaven.  If  the  various  Churches  were 
to  be  the  judges,  they  would  empty  heaven  save  of  a  very  few 
ancient  saints,  and  fill  hell  with  historic  Christianity.  If  the 
judgment  of  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  of  the  Churches 
were  ratified  in  heaven  to-day,  as  they  claim  that  they  will  be, 
every  Christian  now  in  the  world  would  be  excluded  from 
heaven  when  he  dies,  by  the  official  decision  of  some  one  or 
more  of  the  various  ecclesiastic  organisations  that  now  govern 

» Mt.  vii.  1. 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  CRISIS  IN  AMERICA  363 

the  Christian  world.     What  a  rediictio  ad  ahsurdum  is  the 
present  opinion  of  Christendom  on  this  subject  I 

The  doctrine  of  Progressive  Sanctification  after  death  is 
built  on  the  Bible  and  the  Creeds.  It  lies  at  the  root  of  Pur- 
gatory, and  it  is  a  better  Purgatory.  It  is  a  divine  discipline, 
not  a  human  probation.  It  banishes  from  the  mind  the  terror 
of  a  judgment  immediately  after  death,  and  the  illusion  of  a 
magical  transformation  in  the  dying  hour;  and  it  presents  in 
their  stead,  a  heavenly  university,  a  school  of  grace,  an  advance 
in  sanctity  and  glory  in  the  presence  of  the  Messiah  and  the 
saintly  dead,  which  is  a  blessed  hope  to  the  living,  and  a  con- 
solation to  the  suffering  and  the  dying. 

VII.    THE  CHRIST 

Jesus  Christ  is  the  pivot  of  History,  the  centre  of  Theology, 
the  light  and  joy  of  the  world.  No  age  has  been  so  intent 
upon  the  study  of  the  person,  life  and  work  of  Jesus  Christ 
as  the  present  age.  The  life  of  Jesus  has  been  the  theme  of 
the  greatest  writers  of  our  day,  and  yet  no  theme  is  so  fresh 
and  inspiring.  The  person  of  Jesus  has  been  studied  as 
never  before.  The  profoundest  theological  treatises  of  the 
century  have  used  all  the  powers  of  the  human  mind  in  their 
efforts  to  understand  and  to  explain  the  unique  personality 
of  our  Redeemer.  The  traditional  dogma  unfolded  the 
Christ  of  the  cross  and  the  atonement  wrought  thereon,  but 
the  Christ  of  the  throne  and  the  heavenly  mediation  have 
been  neglected.  Modern  Christology  is  unfolding  the  Hu- 
miliation of  Christ,  the  Kenosis  of  the  second  person  of  the 
Trinity,  the  Incarnation,  the  Resurrection,  the  Second  Advent 
of  our  Lord.  All  these  phases  of  Christology  are  in  course 
of  evolution.  They  cast  a  flood  of  light  upon  the  whole  field 
of  theology,  and  are  gradually  transforming  every  other  doc- 
trine. As  Henry  B.  Smith  well  said:  "What  Reformed 
theology  has  got  to  do  is  to  *  Christologise  predestination  and 
decrees;  regeneration  and  sanctification;  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church;  and  the  whole  of  eschatology." 


364  CHURCH  UNITY 

There  are  new  difficulties  and  contests  about  all  these 
questions.  German  Theology  is  agitated  over  the  mode  of 
the  Incarnation — whether  it  was  instantaneous  or  gradual; 
over  the  Kenosis,  and  the  construction  of  the  complex  nature 
of  the  Redeemer.  Anglican  theology  is  agitated  with  regard 
to  the  Virgin  Birth  of  our  Lord  and  the  nature  of  the  resur- 
rection body.  Many  of  the  Evangelicals  are  especially  in- 
terested in  the  doctrine  of  the  Second  Advent.  Each  party 
is  doing  its  work  in  the  unfolding  of  some  special  section  of 
Christianity  which  it  will,  in  the  end,  contribute  for  the  benefit 
of  the  whole  doctrine.  American  Christianity  is  backward 
still  in  the  department  of  Christology;  but  ere  long  it  will 
become  for  Americans  also  the  most  absorbing,  as  it  is  ever 
the  grandest,  theme  for  the  Christian  Church;  and  the  First 
Things  and  the  Last  Things  will  be  absorbed  in  the  blaze 
of  the  glory  of  the  Messiah. 

VIII.    THE  GAIN 

The  fruits  of  this  theological  crisis  can  only  be  great, 
lasting  and  good.  The  First  Things,  the  sources  and  founda- 
tions of  Christianity,  will  be  tested,  strengthened  and  assured. 
The  living  God  will  approach  men,  who  use  all  the  media  of 
divine  influence,  and  grant  them  union  and  communion  as 
never  before.  Vital  union  with  the  living  God  will  make 
living  Christians,  a  living  Church,  and  doctrines  animated 
with  holy  living  and  doing. 

The  Last  Things  will  cease  to  frighten  the  weak  Chris- 
tians, and  stiffen  brave  men  into  the  rejection  of  some  child- 
ish conceptions  of  the  universe.  They  will  be  the  hope  and 
joy,  the  comfort  and  consolation,  of  manly,  heroic  Christians 
ready  to  do  and  dare  for  Christ  and  his  Kingdom. 

Jesus  Christ,  in  his  unique  personality,  in  the  wonders  of 
his  theanthropic  nature,  in  the  comprehension  of  his  work  of 
redemption,  will  present  himself  to  the  Christian  conscious- 
ness of  man  as  their  loving  Master  and  gracious  Sovereign, 
whom  to  love,  serve  and  adore  will  be  the  bliss  of  living  and 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  CRISIS   IN   AMERICA  365 

dying.     "  To  be  well-pleasing  to  Christ"  will  be  the  one  end 
and  aim  of  the  Christian  world. 

It  is  evident  that  the  evolutions  of  Christian  Theology, 
which  have  brought  on  the  theological  crisis,  are  preparing 
the  way  for  a  new  Reformation,  in  which  it  is  probable  that 
all  the  Christian  Churches  will  share;  each  one,  under  the 
influence  of  the  divine  Spirit,  making  its  own  important  con- 
tribution to  the  world-wide  movement,  whose  goal  is  the 
unity  of  the  Church  and  the  redemption  of  the  world. 


XII 

THE  INSTITUTIONAL  CRISIS  IN  THE  CHURCH 
OF  ENGLAND 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  there  is  a  crisis  in  the  Church 
of  England  at  this  time;  but  it  is  altogether  probable  that  this 
crisis  is  not  so  serious  as  it  appears  to  be  from  the  statements 
of  extreme  men.  This  crisis,  like  all  similar  crises,  has  been 
forced  to  a  head  by  rash  partisans,  who,  without  commission 
or  qualification,  except  their  own  conceit  and  presumption, 
constituted  themselves  the  champions  of  orthodoxy;  but  the 
crisis  could  not  have  come  to  a  head  if  there  had  not  been  a  sit- 
uation of  real  diflficulty  in  the  Church  of  England.  It  is  dis- 
tressing to  see  the  peace  disturbed,  and  human  passions  rage 
about  the  doctrine  and  worship  of  Christ's  Church;  but  the 
experience  of  history  teaches  us  that  such  crises  are  necessary 
for  the  advancement  of  the  Church.  It  is  the  only  way  in 
which  the  attention  of  the  whole  Church  can  be  concentrated 
upon  a  bad  situation  and  its  energy  aroused  and  put  forth  for 
reformation.  The  present  crisis  is  an  inevitable  result  of  the 
Oxford  movement,  as  that  was  an  inevitable  resultant  of  the 
evolution  of  the  Anglo-Catholic  party  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land since  the  Reformation. 

I.    THE  DECISION  OF  THE  ARCHBISHOPS  AS  TO  THE 
THREE  CEREMONIES 

The  present  crisis  in  the  Church  of  England  arose  from  a 
public  controversy  about  three  ceremonies:  namely,  the  use 
of  lights  in  processions,  the  use  of  incense  in  worship,  and 
the  reservation  of  the  Holy  Sacrament.  Back  of  these,  and 
involved  in  them,  are  many  other  questions  of  various  grades 

366 


THE  CRISIS  IN  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  367 

of  importance.  The  legality  of  these  ceremonies  was,  by 
common  consent,  though  unofficially,  submitted  to  the  two 
Anglican  Archbishops  for  their  decision.  The  parties  inter- 
ested were  patiently  heard.  All  that  could  be  said  in  favour 
of  these  ceremonies  was  said.  Through  the  courtesy  of  the 
present  primate,  then  Archbishop  of  Winchester,  I  was  per- 
mitted to  attend  a  part  of  this  hearing,  and  I  can  testify  to  its 
carefulness  and  impartiality.  The  Archbishops  examined  the 
whole  case  deliberately.  The  decision  as  to  the  use  of  lights 
and  incense  was  given  July  31,  1899,  and  it  was  adverse. 
Naturally  the  Anglo-Catholic  party  was  greatly  shocked  and 
grieved  by  this  decision;  but  with  few  exceptions  the  clergy 
submitted  to  their  ecclesiastical  superiors.  The  decision  of 
the  more  serious  question  of  Reservation  was  made  known 
May  1,  1900.  This  was  followed  by  the  issue  of  a  joint  Pas- 
toral Letter  by  the  bishops  of  both  of  the  Provinces  of  Eng- 
land in  1901,  enjoining  compliance  with  the  decision  of  the 
Archbishops.  The  decision  of  all  these  questions,  and  other 
like  questions,  depends  upon  the  interpretation  of  the  Act  of 
Uniformity;  and  therewith  the  question  whether  the  Rubrics 
of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  were  designed  to  exclude  all 
ceremonies  which  they  do  not  prescribe;  or  whether  there  is 
liberty  of  ceremony  outside  the  range  of  its  prescriptions. 
The  Archbishops  take  the  former  view,  and  there  can  be  little 
doubt,  on  legal  and  historic  grounds,  that  their  decision  is 
correct. 

At  the  same  time  the  law  of  the  case  is  a  very  serious  ob- 
struction to  the  larger  liberty  of  worship  which  is  demanded 
in  our  times  by  all  parties  in  the  Church.  Although  the 
questions  decided  are  adverse  to  the  Anglo-Catholic  party; 
yet  the  principles,  on  which  the  decision  rests,  would  just  as 
surely  decide  questions  adverse  to  the  Puritan  party,  if  any 
one  should  venture  to  raise  them.  The  law  cannot,  therefore, 
be  enforced  without  grave  perils  on  both  sides;  the  bishops 
have  not  attempted  to  enforce  it,  unless  compelled  so  to  do, 
either  by  extreme  men  of  the  Protestant  party  undertaking 
the  work  of   prosecution,  or   extreme   men  of   the  Anglo- 


368  CHURCH  UNITY 

Catholic  party  challenging  them  to  do  their  duty  by  high- 
handed disobedience. 

It  is  theoretically  true  that  a  law  should  either  be  enforced 
or  else  repealed.  But  if  the  repeal  of  a  bad  law  should  be 
impracticable,  for  reasons  not  involved  in  a  difference  of 
opinion  as  to  the  law  itself,  but  because  of  other  and  greater 
interests  that  lie  back  of  it  and  that  might  be  threatened  by 
that  repeal;  then  it  is  wise  policy  not  to  enforce  it,  but  to  let 
it  fall  into  disuse  by  common  consent.  Such  is  the  situation 
in  England  at  the  present  time  with  regard  to  this  law.  To 
enforce  it  would  be  to  plunge  Christianity  in  England  into  a 
most  serious  situation;  not  to  enforce  it,  but  to  allow  all  par- 
ties reasonable  liberty,  injures  no  interest  and  imperils  no 
cause,  but  makes  for  breadth,  comprehensiveness  and  that 
unity  in  variety,  which  is  necessary  for  the  continued  existence 
of  a  National  Church. 

II.     THE  ANGLO-CATHOLIC  AND  PURITAN  PARTIES 

The  present  crisis  is  due  to  the  evolution  of  the  Anglo- 
Catholic  party  especially  under  the  impulses  of  the  Oxford 
movement.  Undoubtedly  that  movement  was  a  movement 
away  from  Protestantism ;  and  it  is  now,  and  in  its  tendencies 
will  continue  to  become,  increasingly  anti-Protestant.  The 
extreme  Protestant  party  accuse  it  of  Romanising,  and  raise 
against  it  the  cry  of  "  No  Popery."  But  it  is,  in  fact,  an  effort 
to  recover  ancient  Catholic  doctrines  and  ceremonies,  which 
were  thrown  aside  at  the  Reformation. 

The  Church  of  England  differed  from  the  other  National 
Churches  of  the  Reformation  by  its  appeal  to  Catholic  an- 
tiquity. It  sought  to  cast  away  Mediaeval  Christianity  and 
to  restore  Ancient  Christianity,  whereas  the  other  Reformed 
Churches  sought  to  go  back  of  Ancient  Christianity  and  to 
restore  the  Christianity  of  Holy  Scripture  and  build  on  that 
alone. 

Furthermore,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  there  was  a  large 
amount  of  Crypto-Catholicism  in  the  Church  of  England, 


THE  CRISIS  IN  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  369 

men  who  rejected  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope  and  accepted 
the  supreme  authority  of  the  Crown,  but  who  yet,  in  other  re- 
spects, held  to  the  pre-Reformation  doctrines  and  ceremonies, 
so  far  as  was  practicable.  These  were  not  troubled  by  Crown 
or  prelates  so  long  as  they  remained  quiet  and  inoffensive. 

The  whole  effort  of  the  Puritan  party  was  to  complete  the 
first  Reformation  by  a  second  Reformation,  and  to  banish 
from  the  Church  all  Medisevalism,  and  everything  that  differed 
from  the  Christianity  of  Holy  Scripture.  The  Puritan  party 
succeeded  for  a  while  in  their  aim,  when  they  prevailed  in 
Great  Britain  during  the  period  of  the  Commonwealth;  but 
at  the  Restoration,  the  Church  of  England  re-established 
itself  on  the  basis  of  Ancient  Christianity,  at  the  cost  of  the 
banishment  from  the  established  Church  of  a  considerable 
portion  of  the  British  nation. 

The  weakening  of  the  Protestant  party  within  thiitChurch, 
gave  a  greater  impulse  to  the  party  of  Reaction,  and  conse- 
quently the  Mediaeval  tendencies  of  the  Church  of  England 
became  more  aggressive  in  the  third  quarter  of  the  seven- 
teenth century.  In  the  eighteenth  century  they  made  little 
headway.  The  greater  part  of  the  Presbyterians  had  returned 
to  the  Church  of  England,  and  so  strengthened  the  Puritan 
party  in  the  Church.  But  the  Oxford  movement  was  a  more 
determined  advance  for  the  recovery  of  Mediaeval  Chris- 
tianity. It  was  virtually  a  return  to  the  position  of  the  Eliz- 
abethan Catholics,  who  wished  to  reform  the  Church  and 
get  rid  of  all  abuses,  but  to  retain  the  Mediaeval  doctrines 
and  ceremonies  for  the  most  part.  This  is  certainly  a  Rome- 
ward  tendency,  inasmuch  as  the  Church  of  Rome  retains  and 
maintains  all  these  doctrines  and  ceremonies;  but  it  does 
not  involve  explicitly  any  submission  to  the  Pope,  or  the 
acceptance  of  all  the  doctrines,  canons  and  ceremonies  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church;  to  say  nothing  of  the  modem 
dogmas  of  the  immaculate  conception  of  the  Holy  Virgin  and 
the  infallibility  of  the  Pope.  It  is  still  consistent  with  the 
contention  of  the  Church  of  England,  that  every  National 
Church  has  authority  to  determine  its  own  liturgy  and  cere- 


370  CHURCH  UNITY 

monies,  and  it  does  not  abandon  the  principle  of  a  National 
Church.  Accordingly  there  is  a  wavering  in  this  party. 
They  are  in  an  unstable  position  somewhat  intermediate 
between  the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches. 

At  the  same  time  there  seems  to  be  a  logical  necessity  in 
the  movement  which  carried  Newman  and  Manning  and 
many  others  to  Rome.  But  Pusey,  Keble  and  their  asso- 
ciates held  the  great  majority  of  the  party  firm  and  faithful 
to  the  national  Church  which  they  endeavoured  to  reform 
in  a  Mediaeval  direction.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this 
party  has  changed  the  face  of  English  Christianity  during 
the  past  half  century,  for  the  party  has  steadily  advanced  in 
numbers  and  in  aggressiveness,  and  it  has  exerted  a  wholesome 
revival  influence  far  beyond  the  range  of  the  Anglo-Catholic 
party.  This  is  recognised  even  by  those  who  are  hostile 
to  the  principles  and  practices  of  that  party. 

III.     RESERVATION  OF  THE  SACRAMENT 

The  three  burning  questions  in  this  crisis  are  all  related 
to  the  celebration  of  the  Holy  Communion.  The  most  im- 
portant of  these  is  the  Reservation  of  the  Holy  Sacrament. 
The  Holy  Sacrament  is  the  great  central  institution  of  Christ's 
Church.  In  the  Protestant  Churches  it  lost  this  central  posi- 
tion and  became  subordinate  to  the  preaching  of  the  pulpit. 
The  Oxford  movement  has  had  much  to  do  in  restoring  the 
Holy  Sacrament  to  its  rightful  place  and  importance.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  it  has  become  much  more  important 
to  our  generation,  than  to  any  other  generation  since  the 
Protestant  Reformation.  There  has  been  an  increasing  aver- 
sion among  Anglicans  to  the  Zwinglian  view  which  makes  it  a 
mere  memorial  of  Christ's  passion  and  death.  There  has 
been  increasing  emphasis  upon  the  Calvinistic  view  of  the 
real  spiritual  presence  of  our  Lord;  and  the  doctrine  of  a 
real  substantial  presence  of  Christ  has  won  many  adherents, 
who  are  not  willing  to  define  that  presence  either  in  terms 
of  consubstantiation  or  transubstantiation. 


THE  CRISIS  IN  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  371 

Celebrations  of  the  Holy  Communion  have  become  more 
frequent  not  only  in  the  Church  of  England,  but  in  the  Church 
of  Scotland.  Even  in  the  non-conforming  bodies  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  more  highly  esteemed.  It  is  quite  natural,  there- 
fore, that  the  sick  should  share  in  the  craving  for  the  Holy 
Communion,  and  that  the  dying  should  desire  it  more  fre- 
quendy.  This  greatly  increases  the  responsible  labours  of 
the  clergy  in  their  holy  office.  It  is  not  always  practicable 
to  celebrate  the  Holy  Communion  with  the  appointed  services 
at  the  bedside  of  the  sick,  in  crowded  tenements  and  in  peril 
of  infectious  diseases.  Therefore,  the  desire  for  Reservation 
is  a  natural  desire;  for  it  removes  most  of  these  difficulties. 
If  the  priest  may  take  the  holy  consecrated  bread  and  wine 
directly  to  the  sick  and  the  dying  without  the  repetition  of 
the  service,  he  may  give  them  the  benefits  of  Holy  Communion 
much  more  frequently;  and  in  many  cases  where  they  could 
not  receive  it  otherwise. 

The  desire  for  Reservation  is  undoubtedly  connected  with 
a  very  deep  sense  of  the  saving  benefits  of  the  Holy  Com- 
munion, and  with  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence. 

Those  who  hold  these  views  are  not  altogether  content 
with  the  rubric  which  the  late  primate  urged.     It  says: 

But  if  a  man,  either  by  reason  of  extremity  of  sickness  or  for  want  of 
warning  in  due  time  to  the  curate  or  for  lack  of  company  to  receive  with 
him,  or  by  any  other  just  impediment,  do  not  receive  the  Sacrament  of 
Christ's  Body  and  Blood,  the  curate  shall  instruct  him  that  if  he  do 
truly  repent  him  of  his  sins  and  steadfastly  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  hath 
suffered  death  upon  the  cross  for  him  and  shed  his  blood  for  his  redemp- 
tion, earnestly  remembering  the  benefits  he  hath  thereby,  and  giving  him 
hearty  thanks  therefore,  he  doth  eat  and  drink  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
our  Saviour  Christ  profitably  to  his  soul's  health,  although  he  do  not 
receive  the  Sacrament  with  his  mouth. 

They  think  this  rubric  does  not  altogether  meet  the  present 
situation.  For  they  feel  that,  however  much  you  may  mag- 
nify spiritual  communion  with  Christ,  there  is  in  sacramental 
communion  something  unique,  which  cannot  be  had  in  any 
other  way;  and  that  it  is  a  hardship  to  deprive  of  its  unspeak- 


372  CHURCH  UNITY 

able  benefits  those  who  most  need  this  Sacrament,  because 
of  those  impediments  to  a  celebration  at  the  bedside,  which 
would  all  be  done  away  with,  if  they  could  partake  of  the  re- 
served sacrament.  They  think  that  any  peril  of  adoration, 
involved  in  reservation,  is  more  than  counterbalanced  by  the 
benefit  of  reservation,  in  all  these  cases  where  the  rubric 
recognises  a  celebration  as  impracticable. 

Reservation  does  not  involve  in  itself  the  doctrine  or  prac- 
tice of  adoration.  You  may  reserve  for  purpose  of  adoration 
as  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church;  or  you  may  reserve  for 
practical  reasons,  to  give  the  sacrament  to  the  sick  and  dy- 
ing, without  any  purpose  of  adoration.  This  is  distinctly 
recognised  by  the  late  primate  in  his  decision.  He  distin- 
guishes three  kinds  of  Reservation.  On  the  other  hand,  you 
may  adore  the  Christ  substantially  present  in  the  Holy  Sac- 
rament without  any  reservation  at  all.  You  do  not,  there- 
fore, prevent  adoration  by  refusing  reservation,  and  you  do 
not  permit  adoration  by  permitting  reservation.  These 
two  things  are  in  no  necessary  relation  the  one  to  the  other. 
You  may  forbid  adoration  and  you  may  permit  reservation. 
You  may  forbid  reservation  and  you  may  permit  adoration. 
The  two  are  entirely  separable  both  in  principle  and  in 
practice. 

At  the  same  time,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  Reserva- 
tion, before  the  Reformation  in  the  Church  of  England,  and 
in  the  Church  of  Rome  everywhere  since,  has  been  so  much 
for  the  purpose  of  adoration,  in  the  opportunity  given  be- 
cause of  the  Sacrament  abiding  on  the  altar,  that  the  reser- 
vation for  the  sick  and  the  dying  is  merged  and  lost  sight  of 
in  the  more  common  use.  But  where  the  Sacrament  is  car- 
ried from  the  altar  to  the  sick  and  the  dying,  it  is  quite  easy 
to  distinguish  between  the  adoration  which  greets  it  in  a 
Roman  Catholic  community,  and  the  simple,  quiet,  reverent 
way  in  which  an  Anglican  priest  carries  it  without  thinking 
of  adoration. 

It  is  said  by  some  that  the  sick  need  the  entire  ceremony 
to  prepare  them  for  the  act  of  communion.     But,  on  the 


THE  CRISIS  IN  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  373 

other  hand,  it  is  urged  that  the  invalid  who  intends  to  par- 
ticipate will,  in  his  mind,  through  his  familiarity  with  his 
prayer-book,  follow  the  entire  service  in  the  church,  and 
thus  be  better  prepared  to  partake,  than  if  he  had  been  hur- 
ried through  the  shortened  service  in  his  own  home;  so  that 
he  really  has  a  better  preparation  in  this  way  than  in  the 
other. 

For  myself,  I  wish  that  liberty  might  be  granted  at  this 
point.  I  think  that  in  a  wise  Christian  policy  such  liberty 
should  be  granted.  But  it  seems  evident  that  the  law  of  the 
Church  is  against  it,  and  that  the  law  was  designed  to  be 
against  it,  and  the  late  primate's  decision  cannot  be  gain- 
said. 

Reservation,  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  meant  es- 
sentially reservation  in  the  church  for  adoration;  and  any 
toleration  of  reservation  at  that  time  would  have  involved 
adoration.  It  was  necessary  to  abolish  reservation  in  order 
to  abolish  the  practice  of  adoration  of  the  Host.  It  is  true 
that  it  is  quite  possible  to  argue  that  the  priest  reserves  for 
the  sick  and  the  dying  before  he  thinks  of  the  remainder,  but 
the  rubric  was  certainly  designed  to  exclude  such  reservation 
when  it  says: 

And  if  any  of  the  Bread  and  Wine  remain  unconsecrated,  the  curate 
shall  have  it  to  his  own  use;  but  if  any  remain  of  that  which  was  conse- 
crated it  shall  not  be  carried  out  of  the  church,  but  the  priest  and  such 
other  of  the  communicants  as  he  shall  then  call  unto  him,  shall,  immedi- 
ately after  the  blessing,  reverently  eat  and  drink  the  same. 

The  American  rubric  varies  in  language  but  does  not  give 
any  more  liberty  of  reservation. 

All  attempts  to  evade  the  rubrics  by  unauthorised  limitations 
of  the  terms,  and  by  insertions  of  action  where  there  is  silence, 
rest  upon  the  vicious  principle  of  interpretation — that  any- 
thing is  lawful  which  is  not  distinctly  forbidden;  whereas 
the  principle  of  Uniformity  implies  that  nothing  shall  be 
done  which  is  not  prescribed,  and  nothing  left  undone  which 
is  prescribed. 


374  CHURCH  UNITY 


IV.     THE  PRINCIPLE  OF  UNIFORMITY 

The  principle  of  Uniformity  is  too  rigid,  and  interferes 
too  much  with  the  Hberty  of  worship  which  is  demanded  in 
our  age.  In  fact,  it  has  never  been  possible  to  enforce  it 
without  arbitrariness  and  favoritism,  capriciousness  and 
injustice.  But  the  true  way  to  meet  the  difficulties  is  not  to 
misinterpret  the  law,  but  to  frankly  accept  it  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, and  let  the  bishops,  the  lawful  executives,  at 
their  discretion,  grant  such  dispensations  as  the  situation 
may  require  in  any  given  case.  In  fact,  they  have  always 
done  so.  All  that  we  should  ask  is  that  they  should  do  so 
fairly,  comprehensively  and  in  an  unpartisan  and  loving 
manner.  The  late  primate  recognises  this  when  he  said  that 
in  exceptional  cases,  ''  Necessitas  non  habet  leges."  And 
the  Royal  Commission  on  Ecclesiastical  Discipline  well  says: 

The  theory  on  which  the  Acts  of  Uniformity  were  based,  namely, 
that  the  public  worship  of  the  Church  of  England  should  be  regulated 
by  one  forced  standard,  laid  down  once  for  all,  and  to  be  maintained  in 
all  places  and  for  all  time  without  excess  or  defect,  has  never  been 
carried  out  in  practice.  ...  It  has  proved  impracticable  to  obtain 
complete  obedience  to  the  Acts  of  Uniformity  in  one  particular  direction, 
partly  because  it  is  not  now,  and  never  has  been,  demanded  in  other 
directions.  {Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  Ecclesiastical  Discipline, 
1906,  p.  64.) 

A  Roman  Catholic  divine,  in  a  recent  tract,  describes  the 
Anglican  communion  as  a  "city  of  confusion,"  because  of 
the  freedom  and  variety  of  doctrines  and  worship  compre- 
hended in  it.  We  might  retort  that  confusion  is  not  the  ex- 
clusive prerogative  of  the  Church  of  England.  The  Church 
of  Rome  has  her  troubles  with  her  unruly  children,  and  we 
are  constantly  hearing  of  the  holy  father's  stem  discipline. 
The  rod  is  not  spared.  But  all  this  suppression  of  thought 
and  action,  this  silencing  of  men  in  the  interest  of  uniformity, 
is  an  unending  process  of  violation  of  that  liberty  and  variety, 
which  are  necessary  for  true  vital  unity  and  energetic  progress. 


THE  CRISIS  IN  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  375 

The  confusion  of  an  agitated,  yes,  a  stormy  sea,  is  greatly  to 
be  preferred  to  the  dull  dead  sameness  of  an  ocean  calm, 
without  movement,  without  variety,  without  life,  and  without 
power.  There  is  endless  confusion  when  an  army  is  on  the 
march.  There  is  uniformity  enough  when  they  are  asleep 
in  their  tents.  There  is  confusion  enough  when  throngs  are 
pressing  into  the  Christian  temple.  There  is  uniformity 
enough  when  it  is  abandoned  to  the  priests. 

It  is  just  this  confusion  of  doctrine  and  worship  in  the 
Church  of  England,  and  in  a  measure  also  in  the  American 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  which  gives  evidence  of  a 
vigorous  life,  a  healthy  progress,  and  a  process  of  organiza- 
tion, which  is  rapidly  proceeding  onward  to  a  greater  and  a 
more  glorious  future.  It  is  the  glory  of  the  Anglican  com- 
munion that,  after  generations  of  theological  conflict,  it 
presents  one  national  Church  in  the  midst  of  the  world  where 
Catholic  and  Protestant,  Lutheran  and  Reformed,  Calvinist 
and  Arminian  may  feel  equally  at  home.  And  it  is  the  glory 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  America  that,  in  addi- 
tion to  all  this,  it  has  gradually  incorporated  the  best  features 
of  Presbyterianism  and  Congregationalism,  so  that  those  who 
stand  for  the  old  historical  Puritanism  find  in  it  a  better  type 
of  Presbyterianism,  one  nearer  the  ideals  of  the  seventeenth- 
century  Puritans,  than  in  those  ecclesiastical  bodies  which 
without  sufficient  reason  perpetuate  the  Presbyterian  schism; 
which,  indeed,  had  its  origin  in  a  brave  and  noble  contest 
against  prelatical  tyranny,  but  which  has  now  to  do  with  a 
mother  Church  opening  her  arms  to  welcome  back  all  her 
children  under  the  one  banner  of  Church  Unity,  and  on  a 
platform  which  no  ancient  Presbyterian  could  have  refused. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Anglo-Catholic  party  has 
been  in  the  Church  of  England  since  the  Reformation,  and 
that  it  can  claim  no  less  names  than  Queen  Elizabeth  and 
Charles  I,  Archbishops  Bancroft  and  Laud,  and  the  leading 
prelates  of  the  Restoration.  This  party  has  its  historic  right 
in  the  Church  of  England  since  the  Reformation,  whatever 
any  one  may  say  as  to  its  present  positions  and  claims.    And 


376  CHURCH  UNITY 

the  Puritan  party  has  no  call  to  make  them  uncomfortable  in 
the  Church,  or  to  force  them  to  choose  between  Catholicism 
and  Protestantism. 

V.     FAILURE  OF  THE  ACTS  OF  UNIFORMITY 

The  several  Acts  of  Uniformity  were  made  in  the  interests 
of  maintaining  the  unity  of  the  Church  of  England  and  of 
destroying  every  kind  of  schism.  They  were  used  against  the 
Roman  Catholics  with  great  severity,  because  Roman  Cath- 
olics recognized  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope  in  ecclesiastical 
affairs.  But  the  Anglo-Catholics  during  the  sixteenth,  seven- 
teenth and  eighteenth  centuries  maintained  the  supremacy  of 
the  Crown  in  ecclesiastical  affairs,  and  were  therefore  in- 
dulged by  the  Crown  and  the  prelates,  and  were  not  strictly 
held  to  the  Acts  of  Uniformity.  Throughout  the  history  of 
the  Church  of  England,  the  standing  complaint  of  the  Puritan 
party  has  been  against  the  crypto-Romanism,  which  was 
allowed  and  even  favoured  in  the  Church  of  England.  At 
the  Restoration,  the  Presbyterian  divines  of  the  Conference 
of  Savoy  called  the  attention  of  the  bishops  to  many  of  these 
ceremonies,  which  had  been  tolerated  and  encouraged;  but 
the  prelates  gave  them  scarcely  a  decent  hearing.  They  did 
not  attempt  to  put  a  check  upon  the  Anglo-Catholics;  they 
exhausted  themselves  in  persecuting  the  Puritans. 

There  is  much  to  be  said,  therefore,  in  favour  of  the  plea 
put  forth  by  such  divines  as  Gore,  Scott  Holland,  Moberly 
and  others  against  the  decision  of  the  Archbishops  as  to  the 
ceremonial  use  of  incense  and  lights.    They  say: 

We  are  nevertheless  compelled  to  regard  with  the  gravest  anxiety  the 
rigid  interpretation  given  in  that  ruHng  to  the  Act  of  Uniformity  of  1559, 
and  continued  in  1662,  an  interpretation  which  would,  we  fear,  go  beyond 
the  matter  immediately  under  decision,  and  which  does  make  even  so 
minute  an  usage  as  the  saying  of  *  Glory  be  to  Thee,  O  Lord,"  before  the 
Gospel  in  the  strict  sense,  illegal. 

We  humbly  submit  (1)  that  neither  the  Elizabethan,  Jacobean,  nor 
yet  the  Caroline  Bishops,  whether  before  or  after  1662,  considered  them- 
selves to  be  thus  stringently  confined. 


THE  CRISIS  IN  THE  CHURCH  OP  ENGLAND  377 

(2)  That  there  were  many  important  details  given,  which  were  after- 
ward specified  by  rubrics  in  1662,  which  were  continuously  practised, 
and  in  some  cases  enforced,  without  any  rubrical  direction,  under  the 
Elizabethan  act. 

(3)  That  the  common  law  and  usage  of  the  Church  should  be  always 
considered  in  its  place  by  the  side  of  the  statute  law.  And  we  most  ear- 
nestly plead  that,  in  view  of  the  complete  change  of  circumstances  which 
has  taken  place  since  the  passing  of  the  Acts,  and  in  justice  to  the  Church 
engaged  in  an  immense  and  many-sided  work,  which  is  bound  to  depend 
largely  on  enterprise  and  experiment,  the  interpretation  given  to  the  ru- 
brics should  be  as  wide  and  free  as  their  language  will  reasonably  permit; 
and  that  a  stringent  uniformity,  however  impartially  enforced,  is  the  last 
thing  which  the  needs  of  the  day  require.  {Appeal  to  the  Archbishops, 
signed  by  Gore,  Sco'tt  Holland,  Moberly  and  others.  Guardian,  October 
11, 1899,  p.  1360.) 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Crown  and  the  prelates  in 
the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries  did  not  pretend  to 
enforce  the  Acts  of  Uniformity  against  the  Anglo-Catholic 
party.  It  is  a  question,  therefore,  how  far  customary  law  and 
usage  may  go  as  over  against  statute  law;  how  far  the  neglect 
to  enforce  a  law  may  give  rights  under  the  law. 

It  seems  evident  that  the  Archbishops  in  their  decisions  of 
July  31,  1899,  and  May  1,  1900,  have  given  the  correct  inter- 
pretation of  the  statute  law.  It  is  impossible  to  give  any 
other  decision  on  the  grounds  of  law  and  history.  All  the 
arguments  on  the  other  side  submitted  before  the  Arch- 
bishops, and  made  by  Canon  MacColl  ^  and  by  Dr.  Sanday  ^ 
and  others,  are  ingenious,  plausible  on  the  surface,  fine  ex- 
amples of  special  pleading,  but  altogether  invalid.  The 
Archbishops  weighed  these  arguments  with  the  utmost  care. 
It  appears  that  they  would  have  been  glad  to  reach  a  less  rigid 
interpretation  of  the  law;  but  they  could  do  no  other  as  the 
chief  pastors  of  the  Church  of  England,  when  called  upon  by 
the  whole  Church  to  interpret  the  law.  The  argument  that 
the  common  law  of  the  Church  should  weigh  over  against 
the  statute  law  is  not  a  valid  argument.  The  Church  has  no 
common  law.    The  only  law  any  Church  has  is  statute  law. 

*  Reformation  Settlement. 

^  The  Catholic  Movement  and  the  Archbishops'  Decision. 


378  CHURCH  UNITY 

All  ecclesiastical  law  is  canon  law.  Those  who  make  this 
argument  are  misled  by  the  usages  of  civil  law  and  depart 
from  the  history  of  ecclesiastical  law.  The  argument  that 
the  non-enforcement  of  a  law  against  a  party  in  the  Church 
excuses  that  party  for  a  continuance  in  disobedience  is  in- 
valid. As  Sir  William  Harcourt  in  his  article  in  the  Times 
showed,  that  is  simply  an  evidence  of  "lawlessness  in  the 
National  Church."  The  bishops  have  not  used  their  prerog- 
ative, they  have  not  enforced  the  law.     As  Harcourt  said : 

They  have  for  years  shut  the  gates  of  ecclesiastical  justice;  they  have 
deprived  the  laity  of  the  protection  which  the  law  had  provided;  they 
have  guaranteed  the  clergy  against  any  penalty  for  any  and  every  offence 
against  the  law  of  the  Church,  and  they  call  this  comprehension. 

This  is  strong  language;  but  it  is  substantially  true.  It 
has  been  a  tradition  among  the  prelates  since  the  Reforma- 
tion not  to  enforce  the  law  against  the  Anglo-Catholic  party. 
They  did  this,  not  in  the  interests  of  comprehension,  but  in 
the  interests  of  the  party  which  was  always  eager  for  the 
prerogatives  of  bishop  and  Crown.  The  Royal  Commission 
on  Ecclesiastical  Discipline  state  truly: 

Nor  does  it  appear  that  any  systematic  attempt  to  enforce  general 
conformity  to  the  rubrics  has  ever  been  made  except  upon  three  occa- 
sions: (1)  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  after  the  Advertisements  were  issued 
in  1566;  (2)  during  the  primacy  of  Archbishop  Laud  (163^-46);  (3) 
in  the  period  following  the  Restoration  of  1660.  On  none  of  these  occa- 
sions was  the  result  wholly  satisfactory,  only  a  partial  measure  of  con- 
formity to  the  rubrics  being  established  and  even  this  not  without  seces- 
sion on  the  part  of  many  of  the  recalcitrants.  {Report  of  the  Royal  Com- 
mission, 1906,  p.  9.) 

It  should  also  be  said  that  on  these  three  occasions,  only 
the  Puritan  party  was  constrained  to  conformity,  and  the  re- 
sult of  that  constraint  was  the  nonconforming  Churches  of 
England.  No  attempt  was  made  on  these  three  occasions  to 
constrain  the  Anglo-Catholic  party  to  conformity;  but  on  the 
other  hand  they  were  not  only  allowed,  but  encouraged  to 
violate  the  rubrics  in  the  interests  of  the  doctrines  and  cere- 
monies of  their  party.     Whenever  spasmodic  efforts  for  con- 


THE  CRISIS  IN  THE  CHURCH  OP  ENGLAND  379 

formity  were  made  at  other  times  by  zealous  bishops,  they 
were  almost  always  directed  against  Puritans,  and  Anglo- 
Catholic  irregularities  were  winked  at. 

A  change  came  about  in  modern  times  in  the  interests  of 
comprehension.  The  bishops  ceased  to  enforce  the  law 
against  the  Puritan  party,  because  they  saw  that  such  en- 
forcement was  ruinous  to  the  Church.  Historically,  the  Acts 
,  of  Uniformity  have  been  goads  in  the  hands  of  the  prelates  to 
torment  the  Puritan  party.  As  a  recent  writer  in  the  Guardian 
says,  "  they  were  made  against  the  enemies  of  the  Church,  not 
against  churchmen."  But  he,  as  others,  identifies  his  party 
with  the  Church,  and  claims  that  the  Puritan  party  are  not 
true  churchmen.  This  is  not  historically  correct.  The  Puri- 
tan party  has  as  good  a  right  in  the  Church  as  the  Anglo- 
Catholic.  However,  the  writer  is  plausibly  correct,  for  the 
Acts  of  Uniformity  have  ever  been  used  against  the  Puritan 
party. 

It  is  one  of  the  revenges  of  history  that,  after  the  Puritan 
party  had  gained  the  same  recognition  from  the  bishops  as 
the  Anglo-Catholic  party,  in  the  interests  of  comprehension, 
the  Act  of  Uniformity  should  now  be  turned  against  the 
Anglo-Catholic  party,  through  an  agitation  promoted  by  ex- 
treme and  self-appointed  champions  of  Puritanism.  Ever 
since  the  Act  of  Uniformity  of  Elizabeth  until  the  close  of 
the  eighteenth  century,  the  Puritan  or  Protestant  party  in  the 
Church  has  been  tormented  by  the  Acts  of  Uniformity.  One 
body  after  another  has  been  compelled  to  abandon  the  Church 
of  England,  the  Church  of  their  fathers,  by  these  Acts  of  Uni- 
formity, interpreted  loosely  toward  the  Anglo-Catholics,  but 
with  rigidity  and  strictness  toward  the  Protestant  party. 
And  so,  as  the  result  of  these  partisan  interpretations,  the 
greater  part  of  the  British  nation  has  been  excluded  from  the 
great  Mother  Church,  and  the  Church  of  England  and  her 
daughters  have  become  the  Church  of  a  minority  of  the 
English-speaking  people.  And  yet  a  great  section  of  the 
Puritan  party  remains  in  the  Church  of  England  to  the  present 
day,  suffering  all  manner  of  hardships  and  wrongs  rather 


380  CHURCH  UNITY 

than  abandon  the  Church  of  their  fathers.  It  is  well,  there- 
fore, that  the  bishops  learned  to  be  as  generous  toward  the 
Puritans  as  toward  the  Anglo-Catholics,  and  refrained  from 
enforcing  the  law.  It  was  disorderly,  it  produced  a  condition 
of  lawlessness;  but  it  was  preferable  to  the  rigorous  enforce- 
ment of  a  bad  law,  which  for  centuries  had  proved  a  constant 
peril  to  the  Church. 

As  the  Anglo-Catholic  party  has  aimed  at  a  reunion  with 
Rome,  the  Puritan  party  has  ever  aimed  at  a  reunion  with 
the  Protestant  Churches  of  the  Continent  of  Europe,  with  the 
Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland,  and  with  the  Non-Conform- 
ing bodies  in  Great  Britain.  This,  then,  has  been  the  agonis- 
ing struggle  of  the  Church  of  England:  the  effort  (1)  to  main- 
tain the  unity  of  all  Christians  in  England  in  the  Church  of 
England;  (2)  of  the  Anglo-Catholic  party  to  unite  with  the 
Church  of  Rome;  (3)  of  the  Protestant  party  to  unite  with  the 
Presbyterian  and  non-conforming  communions.  This  strug- 
gle has  increased  in  intensity  in  our  times.  It  is  involved 
in  the  tide  that  sweeps  on  toward  a  Reunion  of  Chris- 
tendom. 

What,  then,  is  to  be  the  end  of  this  struggle  ?  Is  the  Act 
of  Uniformity  to  be  used  in  our  generation  to  force  a  section  of 
the  Anglo-Catholic  party  out  of  the  Church?  Is  it  to  be 
used  to  destroy  the  Church  of  England  as  a  National  Church 
and  to  break  it  up  into  several  denominations  representing 
the  several  parties  ?  There  are  some  who  think  it  and  who 
hope  it,  and  who  are  striving  to  bring  it  about. 

None  of  these  things  is  likely  to  happen.  The  leaders  and 
scholars  of  the  Church  of  England  recognise  the  great  mis- 
takes of  the  past;  the  mistakes  of  Archbishop  Laud,  who,  in 
the  interests  of  the  Anglo-Catholic  party,  succeeded  in  alien- 
ating the  Scottish  nation  from  the  Church  of  England;  and 
of  the  prelates  in  dealing  so  cavalierly  with  the  representative 
Presbyterian  divines  at  the  Restoration,  when  they  had  the 
opportunity,  by  reasonable  concessions,  to  maintain  the  unity 
of  the  Church  of  England.  In  seeking  to  maintain  the  unity 
of  the  Church  by  an  Act  of  Uniformity  rigidly  interpreted, 


THE  CRISIS  IN  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  381 

they  forced  more  than  two  thousand  learned  and  pious  parish 
ministers  out  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  became  respon- 
sible for  all  those  evils  which  have  resulted  from  the  separa- 
tion of  the  Presbyterian  denominations  since  that  time.  So, 
in  the  next  century,  it  was  the  intolerance  of  the  bishops 
which  brought  about  the  separation  of  the  great  Methodist 
bodies,  and  the  alienation  of  the  Welsh  nation  from  the 
Church. 

The  leaders  of  the  Church  are  not  likely  at  this  late  date 
to  reverse  the  policy  of  centuries,  and  at  the  dictation  of  a 
few  ultra-Protestants,  limit  the  comprehension  of  the  Church 
on  the  Catholic  side.  It  seems  evident,  from  the  statements 
of  representative  men  of  both  the  Anglo-Catholic  and  Puritan 
parties,  that  neither  party  desires  to  pursue  the  policy  of 
exclusion.  They  both  seek  comprehension  so  far  as  it  is 
possible.  It  has  now  become  evident  to  all,  that  the  Act  of 
Uniformity,  strictly  interpreted,  makes  comprehension  im- 
possible. A  suflBciently  lax  interpretation  involves  lawlessness, 
and  the  disorderly  situation  that  every  parish  priest,  if  bold 
enough,  may  do  what  is  right  in  his  own  eyes.  The  Act  of 
Uniformity  is  used  to  pinch  the  Anglo-Catholics  to-day.  But 
there  are  already  signs  that  the  extreme  men  among  them 
are  demanding  that  equal  justice  should  be  done  to  the 
Puritan  party.  We  would  hear  all  manner  of  complaints 
from  the  Puritan  party  if  the  Act  of  Uniformity  were  applied 
to  their  irregularities  also.  It  is  necessary  that  all  parties 
should  as  soon  as  possible  agree  to  a  repeal  of  the  Act  of 
Uniformity,  which  has  been  for  more  than  three  hundred 
years  the  curse  of  the  British  nation. 

It  is  an  enormous  gain  that  the  leaders  of  the  Anglo- 
Catholic  party  have  come  over  to  the  same  attitude  toward 
the  Act  of  Uniformity,  as  was  maintained  by  the  great  repre- 
sentatives of  Puritanism  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  cen- 
turies. One  may  almost  hear  a  Puritan  Father  speaking  in 
these  words  of  Lord  Halifax: 

What  indeed  is  the  position  of  the  Church  of  England  under  this  latest 
addition  to  her  burdens?    She  finds  herself  bound  hand  and  foot  by 


382  CHURCH  UNITY 

Acts  of  Parliament  of  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  by  canons  of  the  reign  of 
James  I,  and  by  rubrics  which  have  not  been  revised  since  the  days  of 
Charles  II.  She  is  imperfectly  represented  by  a  convocation  which  the 
State  authorities  will  not  allow  to  be  reformed,  and  which  can  do  nothing 
without  legislative  sanction .  of  a  Parliament  which  includes  Jews, 
Quakers,  Socinians,  Presbyterians,  Non-Conformists  of  every  descrip- 
tion. Agnostics  and  others  who  are  hostile  to  the  Church.  She  has  had 
courts  imposed  upon  her  for  the  decision  of  questions  of  discipline  by  the 
sole  authority  of  Parliament,  without  her  consent.  Her  Bishops,  Deans, 
Canons  and  ecclesiastical  Professors  are  nominated  by  the  Prime  Min- 
ister, and  the  Church  has  no  voice  in  their  appointment.  Every  effort 
she  makes  to  reform  herself,  or  supply  her  needs,  is  thwarted  by  a 
powerful  party  in  Parliament,  on  grounds  avowedly  hostile  to  the 
Church's  well  being.  The  opinion  of  the  Archbishops  is  but  a  new 
band  around  the  old  bottles,  bursting  as  they  are  with  the  revived 
life  of  the  Church.  (Address  before  English  Church  Union,  Guard- 
ian, Oct.  11,  1899,  p.  1380.) 

One  cannot  believe  that  the  Puritan  party  in  the  Church 
of  England  will  take  any  very  different  position  from  this. 
With  the  combined  force  of  both  parties,  there  ought  to  be  no 
difficulty  in  doing  away  with  the  Act  of  Uniformity  altogether, 
and  in  gaining  for  the  Church  of  England  the  same  auton- 
omy that  was  won  for  the  Church  of  Scotland  after  the  British 
Revolution. 

It  is  quite  significant  that  those  who  are  working  for  a  reor- 
ganisation of  the  Church,  so  as  to  prepare  it  for  self-govern- 
ment, are  looking  for  help,  partly  to  the  Presbyterian  Church 
of  Scotland,  and  partly  to  the  American  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church. 

The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  has  adopted  many  of 
the  best  features  of  Presbyterianism.  The  Presbyterian  di- 
vines who  composed  the  Westminster  Confession  and  Form 
of  Government  would  find  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
in  many  respects,  a  better  type  of  Presbyterianism  than  the 
American  Presbyterian  Churches.  There  is,  in  fact,  no  way 
in  which  the  Church  of  England  can  gain  her  independence 
save  by  organising  herself  into  representative  synods.  It  is 
thus  another  of  the  revenges  of  history  that  the  Anglo-Catho- 
lic  party,  which  refused  the  plan  proposed  by  Archbishop 


THE  CRISIS  IN  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  383 

Usher  and  adopted  by  the  Presbyterians  at  the  Restoration, 
as  their  proposal  for  accommodation  with  the  Anglo-CathoHc 
party,  namely,  the  "Reduction  of  Episcopacy  into  the  form 
of  Synodical  Government,"  should  now  in  their  most  repre- 
sentative leaders  propose  this  very  thing  themselves.  Why 
should  it  have  taken  two  hundred  years  to  bring  this  about? 
Baxter  rightly  said  in  1691 : 

O  how  little  would  it  have  cost  your  churchmen  in  1660  and  1661  to 
have  prevented  the  calamitous  and  dangerous  divisions  of  this  land  and 
our  common  danger  thereby,  and  the  hurt  that  many  thousand  souls 
have  received  by  it.  And  how  little  would  it  cost  them  yet  to  prevent  a 
continuance  of  it?    {Penitent  Confession,  1691.)  * 

Some  are  so  perverse  minded  as  to  suppose  that  the  Puritan 
party  and  Presbyterians  will  gratify  a  revengeful  spirit,  and 
will  obstruct  the  efforts  of  the  Church  of  Endand  to  win 
autonomy  under  a  synodical  form  of  government.  This  is 
improbable.  The  Puritan  party  will  not  be  like  a  dog  in  the 
manger.  They  will  not  go  back  on  their  own  history. 
Whether  the  Puritan  party  is  in  the  Church,  or  without  it  in 
non-conforming  religious  bodies,  it  matters  little;  they  will 
welcome  the  effort  of  the  Church  of  England  to  undo  the 
wrongs  of  the  past,  and  to  remove  the  obstructions  to  Chris- 
tian fellowship.  The  Presbyterians  of  Scotland,  Wales  and 
Ireland  will  rejoice  in  this  movement  and  aid  it  in  every  way 
in  their  power.  And  especially  will  earnest,  godly  men  in  all 
Christian  religious  bodies,  who  are  weary,  as  Baxter  was,  with 
the  evils  of  disunion,  be  filled  with  holy  joy  and  courage,  when 
they  see  the  Church  of  England  adopting  all  the  essential 
things  in  government  for  which  their  Puritan  fathers  con- 
tended; when  they  see  her  assimilating  herself  to  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  Reformed  Churches  of  the  Continent  and  of 
Scotland.  It  inevitably  raises  the  question  to  them,  which  ^ 
cannot  be  put  down,  why  they  should  not  accept  the  historic 
episcopate,  the  then  only  remaining  barrier,  on  the  side  of 
Church  government,  to  the  reunion  of  Protestants,  and  so  at 
last  effect  the  organic  reunion  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  the 
*  See  Briggs,  American  Presbyterianism,  pp.  83  sq.,  xvii.  sq. 


384  CHURCH  UNITY 

ideal  of  the  irenic  party  in  all  the  National  Churches  since  the 
Reformation. 

It  may  be  said  that  a  reunion  based  on  agreement  as  to 
Church  government  and  discipline  can  hardly  be  effective  so 
long  as  there  are  such  serious  discords  as  to  doctrine  and  wor- 
ship. This  is  quite  true.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  just 
in  these  departments  that  the  history  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land has  been  so  instructive.  So  far  as  doctrine  is  concerned, 
there  is  practically  no  difficulty  in  the  Church  of  England  at 
the  present  time  in  the  way  of  comprehension.  There  are 
theologians  who  hold,  maintain  and  freely  proclaim,  on  the 
one  side,  all  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church 
before  the  Reformation,  only  rejecting  ancient  abuses  and 
the  supremacy  of  the  Pope,  and  the  dogmas  proclaimed  since 
the  Reformation  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  It  is  true  that  tL3y 
have  no  legal  right  so  to  do.  The  Articles  of  Religion  exclude, 
and  were  designed  to  exclude,  these  very  things.  And  yet 
they  manage  by  unnatural  interpretation  of  the  Articles,  or  by 
an  assertion  of  the  superiority  of  Catholic  tradition  to  the 
Articles,  to  maintain  these  opinions,  and  no  bishop  attempts 
to  interfere  with  them.  On  the  other  hand,  Protestant  doc- 
trines are  held,  maintained  and  advocated  with  equal  free- 
dom, even  in  such  extreme  forms  as  would  have  been  re- 
garded as  unsound  by  the  Protestant  reformers.  Calvinistic, 
Lutheran  and  Arminian  doctrines  are  equally  at  home  in  the 
Church  of  England.  Right  or  wrong,  legally,  historically  or 
ideally,  from  whatever  point  of  view  you  may  regard  it,  that 
is  the  situation;  and  it  is  impossible  at  the  present  time  to 
change  it.  From  the  point  of  view  of  Christian  Irenics,  this 
is  a  wholesome  situation.  If  there  is  ever  to  be  a  reunion  of 
Christendom,  comprehension  in  doctrine  must  be  fully  as 
wide  as  this.  In  this  respect  the  Church  of  England  is  the 
beacon,  the  hope  and  the  joy  of  the  movement  for  the  reunion 
of  Christendom. 

Now,  it  is  just  this  situation  as  to  doctrine  that  makes  it 
practically  impossible  to  enforce  the  Act  of  Uniformity  as  to 
worship  and  its  ornaments  and  ceremonies.    Those  who  hold 


THE  CRISIS  IN  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  385 

the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  mass  must  express  that  doctrine 
in  appropriate  ceremonies,  with  appropriate  ornaments. 
Those  who  hold  the  Lutheran  doctrine  will  also  insist  upon 
somewhat  different  ceremonies  from  those  who  hold  the  Cal- 
vinistic  view.  The  toleration  of  the  doctrine,  the  recognition 
of  the  right  to  hold  the  doctrine,  necessarily  involves  the  tol- 
eration and  recognition  of  the  right  to  the  ceremony  and  orna- 
ments which  express  the  doctrine.  On  the  other  hand,  those 
who  hold  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  must  also  express  that  doc- 
trine by  the  simplicity  of  the  service  of  the  Holy  Communion, 
and  by  the  exclusion  of  all  but  the  simplest  kind  of  ceremony 
and  ornament.  There  ought  to  be  little  doubt  that,  historic- 
ally, the  Church  of  England  is  committed,  in  its  Articles  and 
in  its  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  to  the  Calvinistic  view  of  the 
Holy  Communion;  and  yet,  in  the  ritual  and  the  ceremonies 
and  the  ornaments,  certain  things  are  retained  which  are  not 
altogether  in  accord  with  the  Calvinistic  view;  and  to  these 
the  Puritan  party  have  objected  from  the  beginning,  and  to 
them  many  object  at  present,  although  in  usage  these  things 
have  come  to  have  a  different  meaning  to  the  children  of  the 
Puritans  from  what  they  originally  had. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  there  is  at  present  a  consider- 
able difference  of  usage  in  the  Church,  and  still  more,  a  great 
difference  of  interpretation  of  the  common  usage.  The  rigid 
enforcement  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity  would  strike  both 
parties  with  wellnigh  equal  severity.  The  Archbishops  have 
interpreted  the  law  correctly.  But  it  is  impracticable  to  en- 
force it. 

In  the  meanwhile  the  whole  Church  is  aroused  to  get  rid  of 
an  intolerable  situation,  and  it  will  do  so. 

VI.  THE  ROYAL  COMMISSION 

The  British  Parliament  in  1904  appointed  an  able  and 
energetic  Royal  Commission  on  Ecclesiastical  Discipline  to 
investigate  the  entire  situation.  The  Commission  made  a  most 
careful  and  painstaking  inquiry  and  submitted  its  report  in 


386  CHURCH  UNITY 

1906,  wath  exceedingly  full  and  valuable  information  and 
remedial  proposals.    They  recognise  that: 

Notwithstanding  the  issue  of  a  joint  Pastoral  Letter  by  the  Bishops  of 
both  Provinces  enjoining  compliance  with  Episcopal  direction  on  the 
lines  laid  down  by  the  Archbishops,  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  Lambeth 
Hearings  have  attained  the  result  at  which  its  promoters  aimed — the  set- 
tlement of  the  questions  which  were  at  issue,    (p.  63.) 

They  urge  upon  Parliament  certain  definite  action,  but 
nothing  of  importance  has  yet  been  done.  So  soon  as  the 
Church  of  England  knows  her  own  mind,  Parliament  will 
give  her  her  will  in  the  government  and  worship  of  the 
Church. 

The  Non-Conformists  of  England  and  the  Presbyterians 
of  Scotland  and  Wales  and  the  Roman  Catholics  of  Ireland 
may  take  advantage  of  the  situation  to  demand  the  redress  of 
certain  grievances.  They  are  entitled  to  such  redress.  It  is 
a  shame  that  these  wrongs  have  so  long  continued.  These 
redresses  will,  doubtless,  be  the  price  the  Church  of  England 
will  have  to  pay  for  her  liberty.  The  Church  of  Wales  will 
probably  be  disestablished  for  the  same  reason  that  the 
Church  of  Ireland  was  disestablished.  But  it  is  improbable 
that  the  Church  of  England  will  be  disestablished.  The 
Church  of  England  will  not  be  broken  up  into  sects.  It  is 
quite  true  that  many  of  the  Anglo-Catholic  party  would  pre- 
fer disestablishment  to  the  long  continuance  of  the  present 
intolerable  situation.  The  Puritan  party  and  the  great  middle 
party  will  be  forced  to  choose  between  disestablishment  and 
liberty  of  worship.  There  is  little  doubt  that  the  liberty  will 
be  given  and  the  establishment  will  be  continued.  It  is  prob- 
able that  the  bishops  will  have  to  pay  their  price  and  give  up 
their  seats  in  the  House  of  Lords.  That  might  be,  on  the 
whole,  a  blessing  to  the  Church  of  England  and  a  gain  to 
parliamentary  government  in  England.  Every  one  of  these 
things  counts  on  the  side  of  liberty,  of  comprehension,  of 
reconciliation,  and  of  reunion.  The  inevitable  result  of  this 
crisis  is  much  greater  freedom,  elasticity  and  comprehension 
in  the  worship  of  the  Church  of  England.    The  American 


THE  CRISIS  IN  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  387 

Church  has  led  the  way,  and  it  may  guide  and  help  the  mother 
Church  still  further  in  this  direction. 

The  Royal  Commission  had  their  definite  task  with  refer- 
ence to  the  Church  of  England.  They  did  not  consider  the 
larger  problem  of  reconciling  the  Non-Conformists  to  the 
Church.  And  yet  this  problem  must  be  solved  before  the 
difficulties  of  the  Church  of  England  can  be  removed.  The 
Non-Conformists,  still  remaining  in  the  Church  of  England, 
are  only  doing  what  the  fathers  of  the  present  Non-Conform- 
ing Churches  did,  until  they  were  compelled  to  leave  the 
Church  for  conscience'  sake. 

The  position  taken  by  the  Commission  is  sound  when  they 
say: 

It  is  important  that  the  law  should  be  reformed,  that  it  should  admit  of 
reasonable  elasticity,  and  that  the  means  of  enforcing  it  should  be  im- 
proved; but  above  all,  it  is  necessary  that  it  should  be  obeyed.  That 
a  section  of  clergymen  should,  with  however  good  intention,  conspicu- 
ously disobey  the  law  and  continue  so  to  do  with  impunity,  is  not  only 
an  offence  against  public  order,  but  also  a  scandal  to  religion,  and  a  cause 
of  weakness  to  the  Church  of  England,    (p.  76.) 

At  the  same  time  the  question  arises  how  reasonable  Par- 
liament and  the  Bishops  are  to  be  in  this  matter  of  elasticity. 
The  Commission  distinguish  between  practices  that  may  be 
tolerated  and  those  which  should  not  be  tolerated.  As  re- 
gards the  latter  they  say :  * 

Among  the  practices  which  we  have  already  distinguished  as  being  of 
special  gravity  and  significance  will  be  found  the  following: 

The  interpolation  of  the  prayers  and  ceremonies  belonging  to  the 
canon  of  the  Mass.  The  use  of  the  words,  *'  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God," 
accompanied  by  the  exhibition  of  a  consecrated  wafer  or  bread.  Reser- 
vation of  the  Sacrament  under  conditions  which  lead  to  its  adoration. 
Mass  of  the  Prae-sanctified.  Corpus  Christi  processions  with  the  Sacra- 
ment. Benediction  with  the  Sacrament.  Celebration  of  the  Holy  Eucha- 
rist with  the  intent  that  there  shall  be  no  communicant  except  the  cele- 
brant. Hymns,  prayers  and  devotions  involving  invocation  of  or  confes- 
sion to  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary  or  the  Saints.  The  observance  of  the 
festivals  of  the  Assumption  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary,  and  of  the  Sacred 
Heart.    The  veneration  of  images  and  roods. 

These  practices  have  an  exceptional  character  as  being  marked  by  all 


388  CHURCH   UNITY 

the  three  following  characteristics:  (1)  they  are  clearly  inconsistent 
with  and  subversive  of  the  teaching  of  the  Church  of  England  as  de- 
clared by  the  Articles  and  set  forth  in  the  Prayer  Book;  (2)  they  are 
illegal;  and  (3)  their  illegality  cannot  with  any  reason  be  held  to  depend 
upon  judgments  of  the  Judicial  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council,  or  to 
be  affected  by  any  view  taken  of  the  constitutional  character  of  that  tri- 
bunal. Any  observance  of  All  Souls'  Day  or  of  the  festival  of  Corpus 
Christi  which  inculcates  or  impHes  "the  Romish  doctrine  concerning 
Purgatory"  or  transubstantiation  falls  under  the  same  censure.  The 
arguments,  based  upon  history  and  the  usage  of  the  Church  before  the 
Reformation,  which  have  been  urged  before  us  upon  many  of  the  mat- 
ters to  which  we  have  directed  our  attention,  are,  in  the  case  of  the  prac- 
tices to  which  we  now  refer,  irrelevant.  We  desire  to  express  our  opinion 
that  these  practices  should  receive  no  toleration;  and  that,  if  Episcopal 
directions  for  their  prevention  or  repression  are  not  complied  with,  the 
Bishops  should  take  or  permit  coercive  disciplinary  action  in  the  Church 
Courts  for  that  purpose.  (Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  Ecclesi- 
astical Discipline f  1906;  chap.  x.  397-8,  p.  75.) 

Undoubtedly,  this  policy,  if  it  should  be  adopted,  would 
satisfy  the  great  body  of  the  Church  of  England.  But  what 
about  the  minority?  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  a  con- 
siderable portion  of  the  Anglo-Catholic  party  would  be  con- 
strained to  depart  from  the  Church  of  England  for  conscience' 
sake.  This  would  still  further  weaken  the  Church  and 
strengthen  the  numbers  of  nonconformists. 

It  would  be  much  wiser  to  extend  toleration  so  as  to  include 
all  of  these  Catholic  practices  on  the  one  hand,  and  also  to 
tolerate  the  worship  of  the  Puritan  nonconformists  on  the 
other,  for  only  in  that  way  can  the  wounds  of  British  Chris- 
tianity be  healed  and  the  Church  of  England  become  the 
real  Church  of  the  English  nation. 

VII.  LIBERTY  IN  WORSHIP 

No  nobler  position  has  ever  been  taken  than  that  of  the 
House  of  Bishops  at  Chicago,  when  they  stated  the  third 
article  of  the  quadrilateral  of  Church  Unity:  "The  two  sacra- 
ments ordained  by  Christ  himself — Baptism  and  the  Supper 
of  the  Lord — ministered  with  unfailing  use  of  Christ's  words 


THE  CRISIS  IN  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  389 

of  Institution,  and  of  the  elements  ordained  by  him";  sup- 
plemented as  it  was  by  the  statement  in  the  Declaration 
*'  that  in  all  things  of  human  ordering  or  human  choice  relating 
to  modes  of  worship  and  discipline  or  to  traditional  customs, 
this  Church  is  ready  in  the  spirit  of  love  and  humility,  to 
forego  all  preferences  of  her  own."  This  ideal  has  been  en- 
dorsed by  the  Lambeth  Conference,  and  is  the  common  plat- 
form of  the  Anglican  Church  for  reunion.  This  platform 
has  reconciled  many  to  the  Anglican  Communion.  It 
should  be  used  not  as  a  merely  theoretical  ideal,  but  as  a 
practical  working  ideal.  They  should  endeavour  to  make 
the  Church  itself  correspond  with  that  ideal. 

Uniformity  of  doctrine  has  been  abandoned  in  the  Church 
of  England,  why  not,  then.  Uniformity  of  Worship  ?  Uni- 
formity in  worship  is  as  impracticable  as  strict  uniformity 
in  doctrine.  Even  the  Church  of  Rome  allows  such  of  the 
Greeks  and  Orientals  as  have  come  into  union  with  her  to 
use  their  own  historic  rites  and  ceremonies.  Rome  would 
undoubtedly  allow  the  Church  of  England  the  same  liberty 
as  a  reward  for  reunion.  The  Church  of  England  insists 
theoretically  upon  uniformity,  and  is  bound  by  law  to  a  greater 
uniformity  than  any  other  Church  in  Christendom.  She 
would  make  a  great  advance  in  the  direction  of  liberty  if 
she  could  even  return  to  the  variety  of  usage  in  the  different 
dioceses  of  England  before  the  Reformation.  The  American 
Episcopal  Church  has  revised  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 
and  removed  from  it  many  things  objectionable  to  the  Puri- 
tan party,  and  has  inserted  some  things  desired  by  the  Cath- 
olic party,  and  allows  considerable  freedom  in  omissions  at 
the  discretion  of  the  clergy.  The  Church  of  Ireland  has 
also  improved  her  Prayer  Book.  The  Episcopal  Church  of 
Scotland  has  at  last  undertaken  a  much  needed  revision  of 
her  Prayer  Book.  The  Church  of  England  is  still  bound  to 
the  intolerable  position  of  1661.  If  the  Church  of  England, 
is  ever  to  make  the  Lambeth  platform  of  Unity  practical 
she  must  advance  to  the  position  of  a  regulated  liberty  of 
Worship. 


390  CHURCH  UNITY 

It  was  a  happy  circumstance  that  the  Adiaphoristic  con- 
troversy raged  in  Germany  at  so  early  a  date,  1548-55,  in 
connection  with  the  Augsburg  Interim  and  the  Leipzig 
Interim,  and  that  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  divines  reached 
an  early  solution  of  the  difficulty  in  the  sound  position  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord  that  when 

"  Ceremonies  or  ecclesiastical  rites  such  as  in  the  Word  of  God  are 
neither  commanded  nor  forbidden  but  have  only  been  instituted  for 
the  sake  of  order  or  seemliness"  are  made  matters  of  conscience  "by 
a  sort  of  coercion  obtruded  upon  the  Church  as  necessary,  and  that  con- 
trary to  the  Christian  hberty  which  the  Church  of  Christ  has  in  external 
matters  of  this  sort,"  they  should  be  resisted  at  all  hazards.  But  they  also 
condemn  the  other  extreme:  "When  external  ceremonies  which  are  in- 
different, are  abrogated  under  the  opinion  that  it  is  not  free  to  the 
Church  of  God,  as  occasion  demands,  to  use  this  or  that  ceremony  by  the 
privilege  of  its  Christian  liberty  as  it  shall  judge  to  be  useful  to  edifi- 
cation."    {Art.  X.) 

This  sound  position  saved  Germany  and  the  entire  Con- 
tinent from  those  -controversies  about  ceremonies  which  have 
distracted  British  Christianity.  And  so  the  Lutheran  and 
Reformed  Churches  of  the  Continent  have  simple  liturgies 
of  a  few  chief  types,  with  great  variety  in  details,  in  the  numer- 
ous national  Churches.  These  variations  continue  in  their 
daughter  Churches  of  America.  The  German  Reformed 
Church  has  long  been  in  the  enviable  position  of  having  a 
most  excellent  revised  Calvinistic  Liturgy  which  is  entirely 
optional  in  its  use,  but  greatly  appreciated  and  widely  used 
on  that  very  account.  The  American  Presbyterian  Church 
has  recently  followed  the  example  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
of  Scotland  and  adopted  a  highly  appreciated,  optional 
liturgy.  The  liturgical  movement  has  nothing  to  lose  but 
everything  to  gain  by  liberty  of  worship.  That  which  b 
imposed  by  authority,  however  excellent  it  may  be,  provokes 
resistance.  That  which  is  freely  offered  is  valued  for  itself. 
The  most  excellent  liturgy  and  the  most  tasteful  and  ex- 
pressive ceremonies  of  worship  will  eventually  win  general 
acceptance. 


THE  CRISIS  IN  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  391 

The  Chicago  Lambeth  platform  of  Unity  has  made  a 
valid  distinction  between  the  essentials  and  non-essentials  of 
Christian  Worship.  Let  the  Mother  Church  and  her  daugh- 
ters faithfully  adhere  to  it  and  so  promote  liberty  and  unity 
of  Christian  Worship.  Then  all  the  difficulties  of  British 
Christianity  will  be  solved,  all  the  parties  will  be  reconciled; 
and  Catholic  and  Protestant,  Lutheran  and  Calvinist,  Ar- 
minian  and  Evangelical,  will  partake  together  of  the  one 
holy  sacrifice;  and,  while  each  will  have  his  freedom  in  his 
own  parish  to  use  such  ceremonies  and  ornaments  and  liturgy 
as  will  best  express  his  own  doctrine,  he  will  not  be  offended 
when  he  partakes  with  his  brethren  in  the  use  of  other  cere- 
monies, ornaments  and  liturgies.  It  is  vel-y  desirable  that 
the  unity  and  peace  of  the  Church  may  be  realised  in  some 
such  comprehensive  position. 

The  rigid  interpretation  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity  by  the 
Ai'chbishops  seems  to  raise  an  insuperable  obstacle  in  the 
way  of  Church  Unity.  The  proposals  of  the  royal  Commis- 
sion only  offer  partial  relief,  and  threaten  the  rupture  of  the 
Church,  rather  than  promise  its  reunion  with  other  Churches. 
But  it  really  opens  the  eyes  of  the  Church  of  England  to  see 
the  perils  of  the  situation,  and  therefore  initiates  movements 
which  will  be  fruitful  in  unity  and  peace. 

The  Worship  of  Christian  Churches  all  over  the  world  is 
essentially  the  same.  It  is  composed  of  prayers,  whether 
sung  or  read  or  said,  of  essentially  the  same  contents.  They 
have  come  down  from  the  earliest  times  and  have  come  to- 
gether from  many  lands  and  many  devout  souls,  whether 
preserved  in  liturgical  forms  or  in  the  traditional  language 
of  extempore  devotion.  The  hymns  of  praise  are  a  col- 
lection of  hymns  of  all  lands  and  nations  and  Churches  and 
denominations.  The  same  Bible  is  read  throughout  the 
Christian  world,  and  is  used  as  the  basis  of  all  Christian  preach- 
ing and  teaching.  Notwithstanding  all  the  differences  of  ex- 
ternal form  and  ceremony,  the  worship  in  all  Christian 
Churches,  as  it  rises  up  to  God  from  every  kindred  nation 


392  CHURCH  UNITY 

and  tongue  and  is  stripped  of  all  that  is  external  and  unim- 
portant, is  essentially  the  same.  It  is  doubtful  whether  the 
saints  of  heaven  would  discern  those  differences  which  seem 
so  important  to  us  here  on  earth.  The  odour  of  Christ's 
name  gives  efficacy  to  all  the  worship,  however  defective  it 
may  be.  It  all  ascends  in  his  name  to  the  Father  and  the 
Father  will  not  reject  the  Greek,  the  Armenian  or  the  Roman, 
any  more  than  the  Anglican,  Presbyterian  or  Congregation- 
alist,  or  any  other  who  worships  Him  "in  spirit  and  in 
truth"     (John  iv.  23.) 


XIII 
THE  ENCYCLICAL  AGAINST  MODERNISM 

Pope  Pius  X  is  in  the  sixth  year  of  his  pontificate.  He 
began  as  a  Hberal  Pope,  proposing  to  reform  all  things  in 
Christ,  and  for  about  two  years  he  seemed  bent  upon  carry- 
ing out  his  ideal.  But  suddenly  there  came  a  change;  the 
environment  of  the  Roman  Curia  was  too  strong  for  him, 
and  they  persuaded  him  to  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  Pius 
IX,  and  oppose  reform  as  the  most  dangerous  of  heresies. 
He  began  as  a  broad-minded,  warm-hearted,  tolerant,  con- 
ciliatory, lovable  Pope,  the  humble  servant  of  Christ,  popular 
with  all  classes  of  people,  who  were  ready  to  rally  about  him 
with  enthusiasm  for  the  work  of  reform.  He  now  appears 
in  his  attitude  towards  the  French  Episcopate  and  the  Italian 
Catholic  Nationalists,  in  the  decisions  of  the  Biblical  Com- 
mission, and  especially  in  the  new  Syllabus  and  Encyclical, 
as  a  mediaeval  curial  Caesar  possessed  of  the  very  opposite 
qualities. 

How  can  such  a  transformation  be  explained  ?  Some  see 
in  him  a  man  to  be  pitied  for  his  weakness  in  the  hands  of  an 
ecclesiastical  Camarilla,  who  make  him  a  real  prisoner  of 
the  Vatican,  because  they  do  not  permit  him  to  see  the  truth 
and  reality  of  the  outer  world,  but  only  matters  and  things 
as  they  represent  them  to  him.  But  the  mass  of  the  voters 
of  Italy  and  France  cannot  make  this  discrimination;  they 
regard  clericalism  as  the  great  enemy  of  the  people  and  the 
Roman  hierarchy  as  the  deadly  foe,  which  must  be  overthrown 
at  all  hazards  and  every  cost. 

It  is  difficult  for  an  American  to  appreciate  the  situation 
in  the  Latin  countries,  where  the  people  are  Catholic,  but  the 

393 


304  CHURCH  UNITY 

masses  of  the  men  are  anti-clerical.  We  are  accustomed  to 
free  Churches  in  a  free  State.  We  cannot  appreciate  this 
state  of  war,  and  the  injustices  and  hardships  that  result  from 
it.  In  Italy  the  people  are  so  bitterly  anti-clerical  that  the 
highest  dignitaries  of  the  Papal  court  have  been  insulted  in 
the  streets  of  Rome,  and  it  has  been  unsafe  for  them  to  ap- 
pear in  public  without  the  protection  of  that  very  Italian 
Government  which  they  ordinarily  ignore  and  despise. 
Under  such  circumstances,  one  would  naturally  suppose  that 
the  Curia  would  pursue  a  prudent  policy.  But  they  have 
chosen  the  reverse,  and  are  doing  all  in  their  power  to  stir 
up  strife  all  over  the  Christian  world  with  a  madness  that  is 
the  sure  precursor  of  ruin.  They  have  issued  a  new  Syl- 
labus of  errors,  and  an  Encyclical  against  Modernism;  they 
propose  a  new  Inquisition :  they  are  hurrying  on  the  canon- 
isation of  Pius  IX;  they  are  even  proposing  another  infallible 
dogma,  the  Assumption  of  the  Virgin,  and  a  recalling  of  the 
Vatican  Council  to  enhance  still  further  the  authority  of  the 
Pope,  and  protect  it  from  the  supposed  encroachments  of 
modern  States.  Pius  IX,  by  his  arbitrary  measures,  brought 
on  the  destruction  of  the  temporal  power  of  the  Papacy;  Pius 
X  is  on  the  way  to  still  more  serious  results. 

I.  THE  SYLLABUS 

The  Syllabus  is  a  collection  of  sixty-five  statements  which 
are  condemned  as  errors.  These  statements  are  not,  so  far 
as  I  have  been  able  to  trace  them,  the  verbal  statements  of  any 
one,  save  the  authors  of  the  Syllabus;  but  they  are  based 
upon  statements  made  by  Loisy,  Tyrrell  and  other  Catholic 
scholars  whose  writings  have  been  put  on  the  Index.  I  have 
traced  a  considerable  number  of  these  in  their  writings;  in 
no  single  instance  are  the  exact  words  of  these  writings  given ; 
but  their  supposed  ideas,  with  some  of  the  principal  words, 
are  put  into  entirely  new  sentences  composed  by  the  authors 
of  the  Syllabus.  It  is  easy  to  see  what  grave  injustice  is  there- 
by done  to  these  scholars.    They  are  deprived  of  the  right  of 


THE  ENCYCLICAL  AGAINST  MODERNISM  395 

stating  and  explaining  their  own  opinions;  but  their  ideas  are 
first  interpreted,  or,  rather,  misinterpreted,  by  their  enemies, 
then  put  into  statements  which  mingle  their  words  with  the 
words  of  their  enemies,  these  being  wrested  and  distorted; 
and  then  they  are  held  up  before  the  world  as  guilty  of  serious 
errors  for  these  very  statements  composed  by  their  enemies; 
and,  finally,  they  are  charged  with  temerity  and  disrespect  of 
authority  if  they  question  the  validity  of  these  statements  or 
disclaim  any  responsibility  for  them.  I  shall  give  an  example. 
The  twenty-second  error  of  the  Syllabus  reads  as  follows: 

The  dogmas  which  the  Church  gives  out  as  revealed  are  not  truths 
which  have  fallen  down  from  heaven,  but  are  an  interpretation  of  re- 
ligious facts,  which  the  human  mind  has  acquired  by  laborious  effort. 

Loisy  says: 

The  conceptions  that  the  Church  presents  as  revealed  dogmas  are 
not  truths  fallen  from  heaven,  and  preserved  by  religiotis  tradition  in  the 
precise  form  in  which  they  first  appeared.  The  historian  sees  in  them  the 
interpretation  of  religious  facts,  acquired  by  a  laborious  effort  of  theo- 
logical thought.  Though  the  dogmas  may  be  Divine  in  origin  and  sub- 
stance, they  are  human  in  structure  and  composition.  {The  Gospel  and  the 
Church,  p.  210.) 

This  statement  of  Loisy  is  careful,  accurate  and  well  guarded. 
It  is  difficult  to  see  how  any  one  who  knows  anything  of  Bib- 
lical Theology  and  the  History  of  Dogma  can  doubt  it.  Those 
Roman  scholastics  who  know  neither  Bible,  nor  History,  and 
make  the  Scholastic  Theology  the  universal  norm,  may  deny 
it;  but  they  had  no  right  to  misrepresent  Loisy  by  leaving 
out  the  qualifying  clauses  which  were  essential  to  express  his 
meaning.     I  have  italicised  the  most  important  of  these. 

XL  THE  ENCYCLICAL 

We  cannot  dwell  upon  the  Syllabus,  for  we  must  give  our 
space  to  a  study  of  the  Encyclical.  This  Encyclical  is  ad- 
dressed, like  all  other  documents  of  the  same  kind,  to  the 
Episcopate  throughout  the  world.  It  is  thus  in  a  sense 
oecumenical;   but  it  does  not  on  that  account  belong  to  the 


396  CHURCH  UNITY 

category  of  infallible  documents :  for  the  Pope  does  not  therein 
"define  a  doctrine  regarding  Faith  and  Morals  to  be  held  by 
the  universal  Church."  He  describes  Modernism,  defines 
certain  errors,  and  prescribes  disciplinary  procedure  against 
them.  There  is  no  definition  of  doctrine,  except  so  far  as  the 
condemnation  of  errors  may  be  regarded  as  an  implication  of 
different  opinions,  which  in  many  cases,  at  least,  may  be  sev- 
eral and  not  single,  and  in  no  case  a  precise  definition  of  a 
doctrine.  The  Encyclical,  therefore,  belongs  to  a  class  of 
documents,  issued  by  the  Pope,  which  may  contain  mistaken 
judgments  liable  to  correction  and  change.  The  Canon  Law 
requires  that  they  should  be  recognised  as  authoritative,  as 
regulating  external  obedience  and  submission  in  conduct; 
but  they  do  not  bind  the  conscience  or  require  internal  con- 
sent, involving  submission  of  the  judgment  and  change  of 
opinion  or  conscientious  convictions.  A  Catholic  scholar  has 
the  right,  and  in  some  cases  the  duty,  of  questioning  their 
validity,  especially  when,  as  is  the  case  with  this  Encyclical, 
his  opinions  are  misrepresented,  his  motives  and  character 
blackened,  and  he  is  threatened  with  ecclesiastical  discipline 
on  false  or  mistaken  charges.  He  may  do  what  has  often  been 
done  in  similar  circumstances — appeal  from  a  Pope  ill  in- 
formed to  a  Pope  well  informed.  It  would  be  difficult  to  find 
an  instance  in  modem  history,  in  which  the  elementary  prin- 
ciples of  justice  have  been  so  thoroughly  disregarded,  as  in  the 
recent  Papal  decree  of  excommunication  against  the  unknown 
authors,  and  all  who  assisted  them  in  the  composition  of 
//  Programma  dei  Modenmti,  Risposta  AW  Eiiciclica  di  Pio 
X:  ^'Pascendi  Dominici  Gregis";  in  which  several  represen- 
tative Italian  priests  show  very  clearly  that  their  views  are 
misrepresented  in  the  Encyclical.  The  Encyclical  describes 
the  opinions  of  the  Modernists,  and  then  excommunicates 
those  who  complain  that  the  description  is  incorrect,  and  that 
without  knowing  their  names,  or  permitting  them  to  be 
heard  in  self-defence, 


THE  ENCYCLICAL  AGAINST  MODERNISM  397 


III.  THE  MODERNISTS 

The  Encyclical  is  directed  against  the  doctrines  of  the 
Modernists.  Who  are  the  Modernists  ?  The  name  is  given 
by  the  Encyclical  to  those  known  as  liberal  Catholics  through- 
out the  world.  I  know  of  no  previous  use  of  the  term  as  a 
party  designation,  except  in  the  religious  struggles  in  Holland 
between  liberal  and  conservative  Protestants.  The  terms 
''modem  views,"  "modem  men"  and  similar  expressions  are 
not  uncommon;  but  "Modernist"  as  applied  to  a  religious 
party  in  the  Catholic  Church  is  unknown  to  our  dictionaries. 
Liberal  Catholics  do  not,  so  far  as  I  know,  object  to  the  desig- 
nation, if  it  carries  with  it  the  natural  meaning  that  they  are 
modernists  in  their  attitude  toward  Theology,  as  distinguish- 
ing them  from  Mediaevalists;  but  they  do  object  to  the  term  if 
it  implies  the  description  given  of  them  in  the  Encyclical, 
which  they  regard  as  a  caricature  and  utter  misrepresentation. 

The  Encyclical  begins  with  an  analysis  of  Modernist  teach- 
ing. This  analysis  cannot  be  found  in  the  writings  of  the 
Modernists;  for,  according  to  the  Encyclical: 

Since  the  Modernists  employ  a  very  clever  artifice,  namely,  to  pre- 
sent their  doctrines  without  order  or  systematic  arrangement  into  one 
whole,  scattered  and  disjointed,  one  from  another — it  will  be  of  advan- 
tage— to  bring  their  teachings  together  here  into  one  group,  and  to 
point  out  the  connection  between  them,  and  thus  to  pass  to  an  examin- 
ation of  the  sources  of  the  errors. 

The  analysis  that  follows  is,  therefore,  avowedly  not  an  anal- 
ysis for  which  any  modernist  is  responsible,  but  one  for  which 
the  Encyclical  alone  is  responsible.  The  analysis  of  Mod- 
ernism is  this:  "  Agnosticism  is  its  philosophical  foundation," 
"the  negative  part  of  the  system";  "Vital  Immanence  is  its 
positive  part."    This  is  the  illustration: 

In  the  person  of  Christ,  they  say,  Science  and  History  encounter  noth- 
ing that  is  not  human.  Therefore,  in  virtue  of  the  first  canon  deduced 
from  Agnosticism,  whatever  there  is  in  his  history  suggestive  of  the  di- 
vine must  be  rejected.    Then,  according  to  the  second  canon,  the  his- 


* 
398  CHURCH  UNITY 

torical  person  of  Christ  was  transfigured  by  faith;  therefore,  everything 
that  raises  it  above  historical  conditions  must  be  removed.  Lastly,  the 
third  canon,  which  lays  down  that  the  person  of  Christ  has  been  disfig- 
ured by  faith,  requires  that  everything  should  be  excluded:  deeds  and 
words  and  all  else  that  is  not  in  keeping  with  his  character,  circum- 
stances and  education,  and  with  the  place  and  time  in  which  he  lived. 

The  Encyclical  goes  on  to  say:  "There  are  many  Catho- 
lics, yea,  and  priests,  too,  who  say  these  things  openly  and 
they  boast  that  they  are  going  to  reform  the  Church  by  these 
ravings." 

Now,  if  this  were  a  fair  description  of  the  Modernists,  and 
it  were  true  that  there  were  many  such  Catholic  priests,  no  one 
could  rightly  blame  the  Pope  for  issuing  the  Encyclical  against 
them,  for  such  opinions  are  certainly  destructive  of  the  Cath- 
olic Faith.  But  who  are  these  Catholic  Agnostics?  Loisy 
and  Tyrrell,  the  chief  Roman  Catholic  liberals  of  our  day, 
who  are  under  severe  discipline  of  the  Roman  Curia,  are  not 
such  Agnostics.  Their  views  are  clearly  stated  in  numerous 
published  writings.  Fogazzaro  and  the  writers  of  the  *'Rinno- 
vamento  "  are  not  agnostics.  The  authors  of  the  Risposta  say 
distinctly  that  this  charge  is  false.  If  there  are  such  agnostic 
Catholics,  let  the  Curia  proceed  against  them  and  no  one  can 
justly  complain.  But,  in  fact,  they  are  giving  a  philosophical 
basis  to  the  opinions  of  the  liberal  Catholics  which,  so  far  as 
it  appears,  is  entirely  hypothetical,  devised  in  scholastic 
brains,  which  have  formulated  a  category  for  these  liberals 
which  they  refuse  and  disclaim;  and  they  have  proceeded 
against  the  above-mentioned  liberal  Catholics  to  the  extent 
of  excommunication,  as  if  they  were  what  they  really  are  not. 
The  Curia  blacken  their  doctrines  and  characters,  and  then 
excommunicate  them  for  being  blackened.    As  Tyrrell  says : 

It  is  plain  that  Modernists  are,  because  logically  they  ought  to  be, 
agnostics  and  atheists.  .  .  .  The  whole  of  this  vast  controversial  struc- 
ture is  poised  by  a  most  ingenious,  logical  tour  de  force  on  the  apex  of  a 
science-theory  and  psychology  that  are  as  strange  as  astrology  to  the 
modem  mind,  and  are  practically  unknown  outside  Seminary  walls, 
save  to  the  historian  of  philosophy.  Touch  this  science-theory,  and  the 
whole  argument  is  in  ruins.    {London  Times,  September  30,  1907.) 


THE  ENCYCLICAL  AGAINST  MODERNISM  399 

Such  a  procedure  against  these  Modernists  has  been  re- 
cently justified  by  a  member  of  the  Curia,  who  said:  "Well 
if  they  are  not  such  agnostics  they  still  are  guilty  of  heresy  in 
other  respects,  and  therefore  have  no  reason  to  complain  of 
injustice."  And  this  leads  us  to  the  consideration  of  some 
other  descriptions  of  the  Modernists.  Modernism  is  repre- 
sented as  "the  Synthesis  of  all  Heresies."  It  is  quite  con- 
venient, therefore,  for  any  one  so  disposed  to  charge  a  Cath- 
olic scholar  with  being  a  Modernist,  if  he  has  written,  or 
spoken,  anything  that  might  be  regarded  as  heretical. 

The  next  most  serious  charge  against  the  Modernists  is  that 
they  hold  to  the  "intrinsic  evolution  of  dogma."  It  is  quite 
true  that  some  liberal  Catholics,  like  Loisy,  make  great  use  of 
the  principle  of  evolution  in  their  study  of  dogma;  but  many 
of  them  do  not.    As  Tyrrell  says : 

Liberal  Catholics  are  not  cast  in  one  mould  like  Seminary  students; 
nor  are  all  admirers  of  Newman,  or  Loisy,  sworn  to  a  servile  imitation 
of  their  views.  I  am  in  some  respects  much  more  old-fashioned  than 
either,  in  other  respects  much  more  new-fashioned.  (Scylla  and  Charyb- 
dis,  p.  335.) 

Tyrrell  himself  questions  Newman's  theory  of  development, 
and  takes  a  much  more  conservative  position.  Furthermore, 
it  is  certain  that  the  implication  of  the  Encyclical,  that  mod- 
ern Biblical  and  Historical  Criticism  is  based  on  the  doctrine 
of  development,  is  altogether  false.  They  are  based  upon  an 
induction  of  truths  and  facts  as  strictly  as  in  the  case  of  any 
other  Science.  If  critics  have  adopted  the  principle  of  devel- 
opment, it  is  simply  because  it  seems  best  to  explain  all  the 
facts,  as  they  have  been  determined  by  induction.  They  are 
just  as  ready  as  are  the  students  of  Natural  Science  to  accept 
any  theory,  provisionally,  that  seems  best  to  account  for  the 
facts. 

It  seems  quite  evident  that  the  Encyclical  intends  to  classify 
^11  the  disciples  of  Newman  among  the  Modernists.  I  feel  as- 
sured that  this  is  not  the  intention  of  the  Pope,  but  it  is  the 
intention  of  the  scholastic  authors  of  the  Encyclical.  The 
way  in  which  they  oppose  evolution  and  development  of  dog- 


400  CHURCH  UNITY 

ma,  and  the  value  of  probable  evidence  and  religious  certi- 
tude, strikes  against  the  most  characteristic  principles  of 
Newman,  which  made  it  possible  for  him  and  his  followers  to 
be  and  remain  Catholics.  One  of  these  scholastics,  who  is 
credited  by  rumour,  sustained  by  internal  evidence,  as  one  of 
the  chief  authors  of  the  Encyclical,  is  known  as  a  lifelong 
opponent  of  Newman.  I  have  it  on  excellent  authority  that 
a  Roman  Cardinal  said  that  "if  Newman  were  now  living  he 
would  be  classed  as  a  heretic."  This  is  not  at  all  surprising. 
It  is  a  thankless  task  in  the  Roman  Church  to  be  defenders  of 
the  Faith.  The  greatest  apologists  have  been  discredited  in 
Rome:  Bellarmin,  Bossuet,  Mohler,  Schell  and  now  Newman. 
It  is  a  common  opinion  among  writers  on  Symbolics  that  it  is 
impossible  for  the  scholar  to  know  what  Rome  really  teaches. 
The  greatest  scholars  who  build  on  the  oecumenical  documents 
and  all  oflBcial  decisions  of  the  Church,  and  think  that  they 
are  defenders  of  Roman  orthodoxy,  are  almost  certain  to  be 
condemned  by  the  ecclesiastics  of  Rome,  who  are  determined 
to  keep  in  their  own  hands  the  exclusive  interpretation  of  the 
Faith. 

It  is  impracticable  to  go  through  the  document  and  discuss 
its  details.  This  would  show  that  the  Encyclical  is  really  a 
trap  to  catch  the  unwary,  or  indeed,  any  person  who,  in  any 
respect,  differs  in  opinion  with  the  Roman  scholastics.  It 
will  be  sufficient  to  cite  their  own  summary  statement  of  the 
errors  of  the  Modernist  Reformers: 

From  all  that  has  preceded,  some  idea  may  be  gained  of  the  reforming 
mania  which  possesses  them:  in  all  Catholicism  there  is  absolutely  noth- 
ing on  which  it  does  not  fasten.  Reform  of  Philosophy,  especially  in  the 
seminaries:  the  scholastic  philosophy  is  to  be  relegated  to  the  history  of 
philosophy  among  obsolete  systems,  and  the  young  men  are  to  be  taught 
modem  philosophy,  which  alone  is  true  and  suited  to  the  times  in  which 
we  live.  Reform  of  Theology:  rational  theology  is  to  have  modem  phil- 
osophy ^for  its  foundation,  and  positive  theology  is  to  be  founded  on  the 
history  of  dogma.  As  for  history,  it  must  be,  for  the  future,  written  and 
taught  only  according  to  their  modem  methods  and  principles.  Dogmas 
and  their  evolution  are  to  be  harmonised  with  science  and  history.  In 
the  catechism  no  dogmas  are  to  be  inserted,  except  those  that  have  been 
duly  reformed  and  are  within  the  capacity  of  the  people.    Regarding 


THE   ENCYCLICAL  AGAINST   MODERNISM  401 

worship,  the  number  of  external  devotions  is  to  be  reduced,  or,  at  least, 
steps  must  be  taken  to  prevent  their  further  increase,  though,  indeed, 
some  of  the  admirers  of  symbolism  are  disposed  to  be  more  indulgent  on 
this  head.  Ecclesiastical  government  requires  to  be  reformed  in  all  its 
branches,  but  especially  in  its  disciplinary  and  dogmatic  parts.  Its 
spirit  and  its  external  manifestations  must  be  put  in  harmony  with  the 
public  conscience,  which  is  now  wholly  for  democracy;  a  share  in  eccle- 
siastical government  should  therefore  be  given  to  the  lower  ranks  of  the 
clergy,  and  even  to  the  laity,  and  authority  should  be  decentralised.  The 
Roman  Congregations,  and  especially  the  Index  and  the  Holy  OflBce, 
are  to  be  reformed.  The  ecclesiastical  authority  must  change  its  line  of 
conduct  in  the  social  and  political  world;  while  keeping  outside  pohtical 
and  social  organisation,  it  must  adapt  itself  to  those  which  exist  in  order 
to  penetrate  them  with  its  spirit.  With  regard  to  morals,  they  adopt  the 
principle  of  the  Americanists,  that  the  active  virtues  are  more  important 
than  the  passive,  both  in  the  estimation  in  which  they  must  be  held  and 
in  the  exercise  of  them.  The  clergy  are  asked  to  return  to  their  ancient 
lowliness  and  poverty,  and  in  their  ideas  and  action  to  be  guided  by  the 
principles  of, Modernism;  and  there  are  some  who,  echoing  the  teaching 
of  their  Protestant  masters,  would  like  the  suppression  of  ecclesiastical 
celibacy.  What  is  there  left  in  the  Church  which  is  not  to  be  reformed 
according  to  their  principles  ? 

To  this  we  might  add  the  query,  What  Catholic  outside  the 
Roman  Curia  does  not  desire  one  or  more  of  these  reforms  ? 
Unless  I  am  greatly  mistaken,  a  very  large  portion  of  educated 
Catholic  bishops,  priests  and  laymen  in  France,  Switzerland, 
Germany,  Great  Britain  and  America  are  smitten  by  one  or 
more  of  these  condemnations.  When  now  to  this  is  added 
the  condemnation  of  the  separation  of  Church  and  State,  and 
the  denial  of  the  right  of  the  Catholic  citizen  "  to  work  for  the 
common  good,  in  the  way  he  thinks  best,  without  troubling 
himself  about  the  authority  of  the  Church";  and  the  rejection 
of  the  principle  that  "to  trace  out  and  prescribe  for  the 
citizen  any  line  of  conduct,  on  any  pretext  whatsoever,  is  to 
be  guilty  of  an  abuse  of  ecclesiastical  authority";  it  is  diflBcult 
to  see  how  a  Catholic  can  be  obedient  to  the  Encyclical  and  be 
a  good  citizen  of  any  modern  State.  If  an  attempt  were  to  be 
made  in  Great  Britain,  Germany  or  America  to  carry  out  those 
principles,  it  is  certain  that  clericalism  would  be  regarded  as 
the  great  enemy  there,  as  it  is  now  in  most  Catholic  countries. 


402  CHURCH  UNITY 


IV.  MEDLEVALISM 

The  Encyclical  is,  therefore,  a  thorough-going  attack  on 
Modernism,  not  simply  upon  liberal  Catholics,  but  upon  all 
that  is  characteristic  of  the  modern  age  of  the  world,  in 
Philosophy,  Science,  Biblical  Criticism,  History,  Education, 
and  Political  and  Social  Life.  It  is  an  effort  to  overcome 
Modernism  by  Medisevalism,  by  making  the  scholastic  Phi- 
losophy and  Theology  of  the  Middle  Ages  the  norm  for  all 
things  in  all  time.  The  Encyclical  is  thorough;  but,  like  many 
other  historic  examples  of  such  thoroughness,  it  is  blind  to  the 
consequences  of  such  a  policy.  It  brought  Charles  I  and  his 
ministers  to  the  scaffold,  and  has  destroyed  many  another 
brilliant  career. 

If  the  scholastic  philosophy  and  theology  of  Thomas 
Aquinas  is  to  be  the  universal  norm  for  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  the  Roman  Church  thereby  divests  itself  of  Catho- 
licity, for  it  sins  against  the  established  principles  of  Catho- 
licity, *^  Semper  ubiqiie  et  ah  omnibiLS.'*  It  not  only  antago- 
nises the  modern  world,  but  no  less  truly  the  ancient 
Church,  which  knew  nothing  of  scholasticism;  and  still 
more  Jesus  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  who  knew  nothing  of 
the  principles  and  methods  of  the  Greek  philosophers. 
Apostolicity  is  the  historic  test  of  a  genuine  Christianity — 
not  Scholasticism.  The  Roman  scholars  are  fond  of  giv- 
ing the  logical  consequences  of  Modernist  theories;  let 
them  consider  the  logical  consequences  of  their  own  position, 
which  would  change  the  Creed  from  "One  holy,  catholic 
and  apostolic  Church"  to  "one  Roman  and  scholastic 
Church." 

It  is  well  known  that  Thomas  Aquinas  was  regarded  in  his 
day  as  a  heretic  and  a  reformer.  The  Aristotelian  philosophy 
was  condemned  at  first  as  sharply  as  Modern  philosophy  is  in 
this  Encyclical.  The  authors  of  the  "Risposta''  claim  that 
they  are  the  true  successors  of  the  scholastic  theologians,  in 
that  they  adhere  to  their  spirit  of  investigation  rather  than  to 


THE  ENCYCLICAL  AGAINST   MODERNISM  403 

their   stereotyped   modes   of   thought   and    statement.    So 
Tyrrell  says: 

I  have  the  sincerest  veneration  for  the  truly  theological  spirit  of  my 
earliest  guide,  St.  Thomas  Aquinas;  but  I  have  very  little  for  the  drilled 
school  of  theologists  who  invoke  his  name,  and  swear  by  the  letter  of  his 
work  to  the  destruction  of  its  spirit.    {Scylla  and  Charybdis,  p.  350.) 

The  scholastic  theology  is  built  upon  the  Aristotelian  phi- 
losophy as  expounded  especially  by  the  mediaeval  scholastics 
of  whom  Thomas  Aquinas  was  the  greatest.  All  Roman 
Catholic  doctrines  since  have  been  stated  on  the  basis  of  that 
philosophy  and  the  scholastic  methods  of  Aquinas.  But  the 
ancient  Creeds  were  constructed  with  reference  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Platonic  philosophy.  There  is  a  basis  of  union 
between  the  two,  but  there  are  also  irreconcilable  differences. 
The  teachings  of  Jesus  and  his  Apostles  were  on  the  basis  of 
the  Old  Testament,  and  had  no  manner  of  relation  to  either 
Plato  or  Aristotle.  Which  is  to  be  the  master  of  theology, 
Aristotle  or  Plato  or  Christ  ?  The  Encyclical  virtually  de- 
thrones Christ  and  enthrones  St.  Thomas  as  the  vicar  of 
Aristotle. 

I  said  in  a  recent  article  ^  that  Leo  XIII  had  taken  an  im- 
portant step  in  reform  when  he  called  Catholic  theologians 
away  from  the  newer  scholasticism  to  the  study  of  the  greatest 
of  the  scholastics,  Thomas  Aquinas.  I  have  not  changed  my 
opinion.  But  in  fact  this  reform  has  been  more  nominal  than 
real,  for  the  reason  that  it  has  been  obeyed  only  in  form  and 
not  in  spirit.  Any  one  can  see,  who  will  study  the  systems  of 
the  chief  Roman  scholastics  at  the  present  time,  such  as  Billot 
and  Janssen,  that,  while  they  use  the  forms  of  St.  Thomas 
and  base  themselves  on  his  system,  they  really  introduce  into 
the  system  scholastic  materials,  new  and  old,  which  are  not 
homogeneous  with  St.  Thomas,  but  which  make  a  hetero- 
geneous system  that  St.  Thomas  himself  would  be  the  first  to 
repudiate.  How,  for  instance,  can  they  adapt  the  doctrine 
of  the  Immaculate  Conception  of  the  Virgin  to  the  system  of 
*  Reform  in  the  Catholic  Church,  North  American  Review,  July,  1905. 


404    ^  CHURCH  UNITY 

St.  Thomas  when  he  expressly  denies  it.  The  movement  in 
their  hands  is  a  sham  and  a  fraud. 

The  Faith  of  the  Church,  according  to  CathoHc  doctrine, 
is  a  sacred  deposit  derived  from  Jesus  Christ  and  his  Apostles, 
whose  substance  remains  unchangeably  the  same.  The 
Church  can  only  interpret  it,  and  apply  it  to  new  circum- 
stances and  conditions.  As  I  understand  them,  the  so-called 
Modernists  agree  to  that.  Loisy  distinctly  says  that ''  though 
dogmas  may  be  divine  in  origin  and  substance  they  are 
human  in  structure  and  composition."  ^  Tyrrell  has  returned 
to  what  he  regards  as  the  "earlier  and  stricter  view." 

Understanding  by  "dogma"  a  religious  truth  imposed  authoritatively 
as  the  Word  of  God,  not  as  a  conclusion  of  theological  reflection,  it  re- 
jects the  very  notion  of  the  development,  and  still  more  of  the  multipli- 
cation, of  dogmas,  and  acquiesces  cordially  in  the  patristic  identification 
of  novelty  and  hersey.    {Scylla  and  Charybdis,  pp.  4-5.) 

According  to  Loisy,  the  substance  of  dogma  is  divine  and 
unchangeable,  the  structure  and  composition  are  human  and 
changeable.  According  to  Tyrrell,  the  dogmas  are  un- 
changeable because  they  are  imposed  authoritatively  as  the 
Word  of  God,  not  as  a  conclusion  of  theological  reflection; 
in  other  words,  he  does  not  recognise  the  theological  form  as 
dogma.  It  is  just  this  distinction  that  the  scholastic  authors 
of  the  Encylical  refuse  to  make.  They  dare  not  say  that  the 
scholastic  form  of  the  dogmas,  and  the  Aristotelian  philosophy 
that  shapes  their  statements,  were  original,  apostolic  and 
divine;  but,  by  failing  to  discriminate  between  the  form  and 
the  substance  of  doctrine,  and  by  maintaining  that  the  dogmas 
in  their  scholastic  form  are  normative,  and  that  the  scholastic 
dogma  is  unchangeable  and  irreformable,  they  really  imply 
the  divine  origin  of  the  scholastic  form  as  well  as  the  apostolic 
substance;  and  this,  at  bottom,  is  the  whole  quarrel  between 
the  Curia  and  the  Modernists.     As  Tyrrell  says: 

For  the  Middle  Ages  with  their  statical  modes  of  thought,  their  crude 
conceptions  of  government  and  authority,  derived  from  Pagan  Imperi- 

»  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  p.  210. 


THE  ENCYCLICAL   AGAINST  MODERNISM  405 

alism,  their  view  of  physical  law  as  analogous  to  civil  law,  imposed  or 
abrogated  at  the  will  of  the  lawgivers,  there  was  perhaps  no  other  way  of 
apprehending  Christianity,  which,  however,  is  older  than,  and  therefore 
separable  from  these  categories.  The  Encyclical  holds  to  such  cate- 
gories still,  but,  rightly  or  wrongly,  the  world  has  swept  them  aside;  nor 
will  any  argument,  however  ingenious,  which  assumes  their  validity, 
receive^  the  slightest  attention.  No  such  instauratio  omnium  need  be 
hoped  or  feared.    {London  Times,  October  1,  1908.) 


V.    THE  NEW  INQUISITION 

The  general  description  of  the  Modernists  given  by  the 
Encyclical  is  so  apart  from  reality,  that  the  first  impression 
naturally  is,  that  the  best  way  to  deal  with  it  is  to  ignore  it, 
or  to  recognise  it  by  agreeing  in  the  reprobation  of  such 
Modernists,  and  affirming  that  they  do  not  exist  in  "our 
diocese."  This  seems  to  be  the  present  attitude  of  the  Amer- 
ican Episcopate.  But  the  second  part  of  the  document  pre- 
scribes a  new  inquisition  and  the  organisation  of  a  vigilance 
committee  in  every  diocese,  with  the  purpose  of  banishing 
from  theological  seminaries  and  the  Catholic  press  and  every 
position  of  influence,  every  one  who  has  the  least  trace,  or 
suspicion,  of  Modernism,  or  who  favours  it  or  condones  it  in 
any  measure.  If  the  plan  of  the  new  inquisition  can  be  carried 
out,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  any  but  a  genuine  Mediaevalist 
can  escape.  But  it  is  evident  that  the  plan  is  too  detailed 
and  too  drastic,  and  not  sufficiently  flexible  to  make  it  prac- 
ticable in  many  parts  of  the  world ;  and  it  is  certain  that  there 
will  be  an  immense  reluctance  and  every  kind  of  passive 
resistance  to  the  enforcement  of  these  rules.  It  is  true  that 
it  is  ordained: 

That  the  Bishops  of  all  dioceses,  a  year  after  the  publication  of  these 
letters,  and  every  three  years  thenceforward,  furnish  the  Holy  See  with 
a  diligent  and  sworn  report  on  all  the  prescriptions  contained  in  them, 
and  on  the  doctrines  that  find  currency  among  the  clergy,  and  especially 
in  the  seminaries  and  other  Catholic  institutions,  and  we  impose  the  like 
obligation  on  the  Generals  of  religious  orders  with  regard  to  those  under 
them. 


406  CHURCH  UNITY 

We  shall  wait  to  see  whether  the  Bishops  and  Generals  of 
orders  will  altogether  comply  with  these  commands.  This 
great  responsibility  is  thrown  upon  them  without  their  advice, 
knowledge  or  consent.  The  Bishops  have  their  rights  in  the 
divine  constitution  of  the  Church  as  well  as  the  Pope,  and 
these  rights  are  protected  by  the  same  Canon  Law  that 
protects  the  Popes;  and,  unless  I  am  greatly  mistaken, 
these  rights  are  infringed  upon  in  an  unprecedented  man- 
ner by  this  arbitrary  ordinance  of  the  present  Pope.  All 
the  Bishops  are  successors  of  the  Apostles;  the  Pope  is 
the  primate  of  the  Bishops  as  St.  Peter  was  of  the  Apos- 
tles. A  Pope  should  no  more  absorb  unto  himself  the 
whole  authority  in  the  government  of  the  Church  than  did 
St.  Peter. 

The  Vatican  Council,  when  it  defined  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  Roman  Pontiff,  at  the  same  time  asserted,  as  it  could 
not  fail  to  do  without  heresy,  that  this  was  "without  preju- 
dice to  the  ordinary  and  immediate  power  of  episcopal  juris- 
diction, by  which  bishops,  who  have  been  set  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  succeed  and  hold  the  place  of  the  apostles,  feed 
and  govern  each  his  own  flock  as  true  pastors."  And  yet 
in  this  Encyclical,  the  Pope,  without  consultation  with  the 
episcopate,  but  solely  under  the  advice  of  certain  unnamed 
cardinals  and  other  members  of  the  Roman  Curia,  issues  an 
ordinance  requiring  a  "sworn  report"  from  the  bishops  as 
to  their  fidelity  in  enforcing  his  new  inquisition.  If  that  is 
not  an  usurpation  of  authority  and  an  enslavement  of  the 
episcopate,  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  what  could  be  regarded 
as  such.  If  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles  committed  all 
ecclesiastical  authority  to  the  episcopate  as  the  successors  of 
the  apostles,  it  is  no  longer  exercised  by  them  in  the  Roman 
Church;  but  their  place  has  been  taken  by  a  Curial  body  in 
Rome  appointed  by  the  Popes  and  responsible  only  to  the 
Popes,  but  without  any  divine  rights  whatsoever.  There 
are  the  cardinals,  who  are  really  bishops,  priests  and  deacons 
of  the  province  of  Rome,  exalted  to  be  princes  of  the  Church; 
even  the  deacons  being  high  above  Metropolitans  and  Patri- 


THE  ENCYCLICAL  AGAINST  MODERNISM  407 

archs.  They  may  have  the  divine  right  to  govern  the  Roman 
province,  but  they  have  no  divine  right  to  govern  the  uni- 
versal Church.  There  are  also  the  generals  of  the  religious 
orders  of  every  name,  monks,  mendicants  and  brethren,  mass- 
ing all  the  injfluence  of  these  associations  in  Rome  with  a  local 
influence  and  practical  authority  transcending,  and  some- 
times overreaching  and  overcoming,  the  influence  of  the  epis- 
copate scattered  and  divided  throughout  the  world.  The 
General  of  the  Jesuits  is  called  the  Black  Pope;  more  power- 
ful than  any  one  in  Rome  but  the  real  Pope.  None  of  these 
orders,  none  of  these  generals  of  orders,  has  any  part  in  the 
divine  constitution  of  the  Church,  and  any  part  they  take  in 
it  is  in  defiance  of  the  divine  rights  of  the  episcopate.  There 
are  the  hosts  of  monsignori,  appointed  by  the  Popes  as  their 
court  officials,  who  have  as  their  chief  functions  to  transact 
as  officials  the  business  of  the  Church.  These  have  no  part 
in  the  divin-e  constitution  of  the  Church,  and  yet  they  take  a 
very  important  part  in  its  government.  These  three  groups 
of  officials  are  really  the  governing  body  of  the  Roman 
Church,  not  only  the  power  behind  the  throne,  but  the  power 
that  so  surrounds  the  throne  that  nothing  can  be  done  ex- 
cept by  them  and  through  them.  Even  the  bishops  only 
secure  a  hearing  through  them.  Time  and  again  an  agree- 
ment between  the  Pope  and  visiting  bishops  has  been  over- 
ruled, and  even  denied  after  the  departure  of  the  bishop 
from  Rome.  The  treatment  of  the  French  episcopate,  dur- 
ing the  recent  troubles,  has  been  most  shameful.  Again 
and  again  have  their  decisions  been  overruled  by  the 
Curia;  and,  finally,  as  I  have  it  on  excellent  authority, 
their  very  names  were  signed  to  an  oflficial  document  with- 
out their  knowledge  or  consent.  Truly,  there  is  no  hope  for 
the  Catholic  Church  until  this  Camarilla  can  be  over- 
thrown. 

The  "Saint"  of  Fogazzaro  tells  the  Pope  of  this  essential 
fault  in  the  government  of  the  Church  when  he  says: 

Perhaps  your  Holiness  has  not  yet  made  proof  of  it;  but  the  spirit  of 
domination  would  exercise  itself  also  upon  you.    Yield  not  to  it,  Holy 


408  CHURCH  UNITY 

Father!  To  you  belongs  the  government  of  the  Church;  permit  not  that 
others  govern  you,  suffer  not  that  your  power  be  as  a  glove  for  the  in- 
visible hands  of  others.  Have  public  counsellors,  and  let  these  be  the 
Bishops,  united  often  in  national  councils. 

Alas!  Pope  Pius  X  has  yielded,  as  so  many  others  before 
him,  to  this  irresponsible,  invisible  and  secret  domination, 
and  the  bishops  throughout  the  world  are  summoned  to 
obey  as  slaves  of  their  master. 

The  "Saint"  of  Fogazzaro  indicates  clearly  to  the  Pope 
the  four  evil  spirits  which  threaten  the  ruin  of  the  Catholic 
Church:  The  Spirit  of  Falsehood,  The  Spirit  of  Domination, 
The  Spirit  of  Avarice,  The  Spirit  of  Immobility.  The  En- 
cyclical is  evidently  pervaded  by  these  spirits,  and  shows 
clearly  and  unmistakably  that  the  Roman  Curia  is  deter- 
mined, in  the  temper  of  these  evil  spirits,  to  resist  and 
overcome  any  and  every  effort  for  reform.  It  would  banish 
from  the  Church  all  the  Reformers  that  are  named  Modern- 
ists; it  would  give  them  over  to  Satan,  or  to  Protestants,  or 
to  another  Old  Catholic  sect.  It  does  not  wish  the  Reunion 
of  Christendom,  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  Christian  Church; 
but  simply  and  alone  a  body  that  will  be  submissive  without 
question  to  its  domination  in  doctrine  and  life,  not  only  by 
external  obedience  of  conformity,  but  by  the  internal  obedi- 
ence of  a  submissive  conscience  and  an  enslaved  intellect. 

I  have  a  great  respect  for  the  person  of  the  present  Pope 
and  reverence  for  his  high  office;  and  I  regard  the  Catholic 
episcopate  and  priesthood  as  a  devout  and  noble  body  of 
Christian  men,  and  the  Catholic  Church  on  the  whole  as  in 
a  sound  and  healthful  condition,  ripe  for  reform  and  ready 
to  reach  forth  for  the  highest  ideals  of  Christianity.  The 
Roman  Curia  is  the  canker,  the  running-sore,  of  the  Papacy, 
which  is  responsible  for  all  the  mischief.  The  worse  it  is  the 
better,  for  it  makes  all  the  more  evident  the  necessity  of  re- 
moving it  at  all  hazards.  I  have  said  nothing  but  what  hosts 
of  Catholics  of  all  ranks  are  saying  at  the  present  time,  who 
are  deeply  grieved  and  heartbroken  over  the  present  situa- 
tion.    Once  more  the  gates  of  hell  are  open  in  Rome,  and 


THE  ENCYCLICAL   AGAINST  MODERNISM  409 

evil  spirits  of  all  kinds  are  broken  loose  to  corrupt  and  destroy 
the  Church  of  God.  They  will  do  incalculable  injury  to-day 
as  they  have  in  the  past,  but  our  I^ord  himself  gave  the  re- 
assuring word:  ''The  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against 
it"     (Mt.  xvi.  18.) 


XIV 

THE   GREAT  OBSTACLE  IN  THE  WAY  OF  A 
REUNION  OF  CHRISTENDOM 

It  is  a  happy  circumstance  that  so  eminent,  broad-minded 
and  warm-hearted  a  prelate  as  the  Archbishop  of  St.  Paul 
should  undertake  to  comment  on  my  article  in  the  North 
American  Review^  "  The  Real  and  Ideal  in  the  Papacy,"  ^  and 
to  answer  the  question.  Is  the  Pa'pacy  an  Obstacle  to  the  Re- 
union of  Christendom?  We  agree  that  the  ideal  Papacy 
is  one  of  the  chief  principles  in  the  unity  of  Christendom; 
we  disagree  in  the  question  that  it  is  the  only  principle,  and 
also  whether  the  real  Papacy,  as  it  has  existed  in  Christian 
history  since  the  separation  of  the  Eastern  Church  and  the 
Western,  and  especially  since  the  separation  of  the  Protestant 
Churches  from  the  Papal  dominion,  has  been  an  obstacle  to 
the  reunion  of  Christendom.  The  answer  of  the  Archbishop 
of  St.  Paul  to  this  question  is  in  the  most  irenic  spirit  and  with 
a  disposition  to  make  all  the  concessions  that  he  can  properly 
make  in  view  of  his  doctrine  of  the  Papacy.  These  conces- 
sions are,  indeed,  so  many  and  so  valuable  as  to  make  it  evi- 
dent that  irenic  Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants  are  not  so 
far  apart  as  is  commonly  supposed. 

I.    THE  PAPAL  DOMINION  NOT  ABSOLUTE 

It  is  necessary  to  discuss  the  difference  between  us  in  our 
conception  of  the  ideal  Papacy.  I  regret  that  I  cannot  accept 
the  statement  of  my  critic  when  he  says: 

Peter  holds  the  keys  of  the  Kingdom.  He  is  the  absolute  master. 
Whatsoever  he  binds  is  bound,  whatsoever  is  loosed  he  loosed.    His 

*  It  is  given  in  this  volume  as  VII. 
410 


THE   GREAT  OBSTACLE  411 

power  extends  over  the  whole  sphere  of  the  Kingdom,  over  all  its  activi- 
ties; it  is  shortened  by  no  power  or  rights  confided  to  others. 

I  fully  recognise  the  primacy  of  St.  Peter  and  his  successors 
in  the  possession  of  the  keys  of  the  Kingdom,  but  not  their 
exclusive  possession  of  this  authority.  How  can  any  one  do 
so  in  the  face  of  the  words  of  Jesus  to  the  Apostles  and  to  the 
Church?  Jesus  said  not  only  to  St.  Peter  but  to  all  the 
apostles  and  through  them  to  their  successors:  ^'Receive 
the  Holy  Spirit;  whose  soever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted 
unto  them;  whose  soever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained."^ 
At  an  earlier  date  Jesus  had  said: 

If  thy  brother  shall  trespass  against  thee,  go  and  tell  him  his  fault  be- 
tween thee  and  him  alone:  if  he  shall  hear  thee,  thou  hast  gained  thy 
brother.  But  if  he  will  not  hear  thee,  then  take  with  thee  one  or  two 
more,  that  in  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses  every  word  may  be 
established.  And  if  he  shall  neglect  to  hear  them,  tell  it  unto  the  church: 
but  if  he  neglect  to  hear  the  church,  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  an  heathen 
man  and  a  publican.  Verily,  I  say  unto  you.  Whatsoever  ye  shall  bind 
on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  ye  shall  loose  on 
earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven.    (Mt.  xviii.  15-18.) 

This  is  the  Magna  Charta  of  Church  Discipline. 

In  the  great  Commission  on  which  the  authority  of  the 
Christian  ministry  chiefly  depends,  Jesus  did  not  give  the 
authority  to  St.  Peter  alone  but  to  the  entire  apostolate  and 
its  successors,  when  he  said: 

All  authority  is  given  to  me  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  Go  ye  therefore 
and  make  disciples  of  all  nations,  baptising  them  into  the  name  of  the 
Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you,  and  lo,  I  am  with  you 
alway  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.    (Mt.  xxviii.  18-20.) 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  power  of  St.  Peter  and  his 
successors  was  ^'shortened  by  power  and  rights"  given  to 
the  apostolic  ministry  and  to  the  Church.  Therefore  I  said, 
"The  three  constituents  necessary  to  complete  unity  are  the 
Pope,  the  ministry  and  the  people,  a  threefold  cord  that 
should  not  be  broken." 

iJohn  XX.  (22-23.) 


412  CHURCH  UNITY 


II.    THE  THREEFOLD  CORD  OF  UNITY 

The  learned  archbishop  recognises: 

That  there  is  in  Christian  unity  a  threefold  element  is  true  in  a  sense; 
the  papacy,  the  ministry  and  the  people  make  up  the  Church,  the  papacy 
cannot  be  thought  of  without  ministers  and  without  people,  any  more 
than  in  an  organism  the  head  can  be  thought  of  without  members. 

But  here  his  metaphor  misleads  him,  when  he  says: 

But  that  a  portion  of  the  ministry  or  a  portion  of  the  people  cut  off 
from  the  papacy  can  still  hold  that  they  are  within  the  lines  of  Christian 
Unity  is  no  more  conceivable  than  would  be  the  claim  that  certain  mem- 
bers separated  from  the  head  or  trunk,  no  longer  deriving  from  the  head 
the  current  of  life  and  motion,  are  still  parts  of  the  physical  organism. 

To  this  it  might  be  said  that  the  current  of  life  and  motion 
does  not  in  the  human  body  come  from  the  head  but  from 
the  heart,  and  that  the  head  is  rather  dependent  upon  the 
body  than  the  body  on  the  head.  In  fact,  neither  can  exist 
without  the  other.  But  a  society,  whether  Christian  or 
otherwise,  is  something  more  than  the  physical  organism  of 
the  human  body;  such  a  society,  as  history  and  experience 
show,  may  exist  without  an  executive  or  even  without  a  min- 
istry; the  only  thing  that  is  absolutely  essential  is  the  people 
that  constitute  its  membership;  they  may  combine  in  them- 
selves all  the  functions  of  government  except  so  far  as  they 
may  delegate  these  to  temporary  representatives.  For  a 
social  organism  the  head  is  the  least  important  of  the  three — 
the  head  and  ministry  will  perish  without  the  people,  but 
the  society  may  live  on  without  them  if  such  a  necessity 
should  arise. 

Surely  it  is  going  to  the  brink  of  dangerous  error  to  say 
that  the  condition  of  membership  in  the  visible  body  of  the 
Church 

is  union  with  the  Pope  the  successor  of  Peter.  .  .  .  Priests  and  bishops 
there  may  be,  validly  ordained,  deriving  their  sacred  character  from 
Christ,  through  apostolic  succession,  yet  they  are  not  of  the  Church 
unless  they  are  with  Peter  and  of  Peter. 


THE  GREAT   OBSTACLE  413 

For  the  Catholic  doctrine  is  that  a  valid  baptism  is  the 
mode  of  entrance  into  the  Church,  and  all  that  are  baptised  in 
the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity  by  the  use  of  water  are  members 
of  the  Church  and  are  subject  to  its  jurisdiction,  whether 
heretics  or  not.  And  all  who  are  "validly  ordained  deriving 
their  sacred  character  from  Christ  through  apostolic  suc- 
cession" are  bishops  and  priests  of  the  Church  and  subject 
to  its  jurisdiction,  even  if  schismatic  and  rebellious.  I  can- 
not understand  how  a  Roman  Catholic  prelate  can  take  any 
other  position  than  this. 

Even  if  the  Greeks,  Orientals  and  Protestants  of  every 
name  be  heretical  and  schismatic,  contumacious  and  rebel- 
lious, they  yet  are  baptised  members  of  Christ's  Church,  and 
at  least  a  large  part  of  them  have  a  ministry  validly  ordained, 
as  Rome  admits.  Much  the  larger  part  of  the  Christian 
Church  is  separated  from  Rome.  The  successor  of  St.  Peter 
rules  over  only  a  minority  of  the  Christian  Church.  These 
separated  Christians  are  organised  as  Christian  Churches; 
they  have  multitudes  of  baptised  Christians  submitting  to  the 
government  of  an  apostolic  ministry;  they  have,  therefore, 
two  of  the  three  principles  of  unity  given  by  Jesus  Christ. 
The  absence  of  the  third  principle,  however  important  it 
may  be,  is  not  so  essential  that  it  destroys  altogether  the  unity 
of  Christ's  Church.  We  are  entitled  to  raise  the  question 
whether  the  Papacy  does  not,  in  fact,  violate  the  unity  of  the 
Church  still  more  than  they,  when  it  absorbs  into  itself  as  an 
absolute  despotism  not  only  its  own  historic  rights  but  also 
those  of  the  episcopate  and  of  the  Christian  ministry  and 
people. 

III.    UNLIMITED  JURISDICTION  CONDEMNED  BY  HISTORY 

The  primitive  Church  does  not  favour,  but  condemns  with 
no  uncertain  voice  the  claim  for  an  unlimited  jurisdiction  of 
the  Pope.  The  bishops  of  Asia  did  not  recognise  the  sover- 
eignty of  the  Pope  when  he  strove  to  impose  upon  the  Orient 
the  Roman  custom  of  the  celebration  of  Easter,  nor  did 


414  CHURCH   UNITY 

Irenseus  of  Gaul  when,  as  Eusebius  tells  us,  "he  fittingly  ad- 
monished Victor."  ^  Victor  was  in  this  respect  guilty  of  an 
intrusion  into  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  bishops  of  Asia. 
Dionysius,  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  writes  to  the  bishop  of 
Rome  as  a  brother,  seeking  his  advice,  not  as  to  a  superior 
looking  for  a  command.  Cyprian  had  very  exalted  ideas  as 
to  the  episcopate  and  the  Roman  see,  but  he  refuses  absolute 
authority.      He  said: 

For  neither  did  Peter,  whom  first  the  Lord  chose  and  upon  whom  he 
built  his  church,  when  Paul  disputed  with  him  afterward  about  circum- 
cision, claim  anything  to  himself  insolently,  nor  arrogantly  assume  any- 
thing so  as  to  say  that  he  held  the  primacy  and  that  he  ought  to  be 
obeyed  by  novices  and  those  lately  come.    (Ep.  vii.  1-3.) 

The  Popes  now  claim  the  exclusive  right  to  summon 
Christian  Councils,  but  all  the  primitive  Councils — all  those 
recognised  as  valid  by  other  Christian  Churches  than  Rome — 
were  summoned  by  the  emperors  and  not  by  the  Popes;  and 
none  of  them  recognised  the  supreme  legislative  and  judicial 
functions  of  the  Pope,  but  exercised  these  functions  them- 
selves, even  to  the  extent  of  condemning  a  Pope  as  heretical. 

There  is  room  for  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  rights  and 
wrongs  in  the  divisions  of  the  Church.  Candid  historians 
who  rise  above  prejudice,  whether  Catholic  or  Protestant,  rec- 
ognise faults  on  both  sides;  but  the  fundamental  fault  in  all 
these  cases  was,  if  I  mistake  not,  the  claim  for  unlimited  juris- 
diction by  the  Popes,  and  the  pressing  of  that  claim  to  intol- 
erable despotism.  It  cannot  be  conceded  that  "in  the  Orient 
the  cause  was  the  pride  and  ambition  of  Photius  first— and 
later  in  Michael  Cserularius"  —although  we  admit  "the  uncon- 
querable jealousy  of  old  Rome  in  emperors  and  courtiers  of 
the  new  Rome, "  not,  however,  without  cause  in  the  ever-in- 
creasing pretentions  of  the  Popes.  It  is  far  from  the  facts  of 
history  to  say  that  "In  Germany  the  preaching  of  Tetzel  and 
the  Gravamina  counted  for  less  as  causes  than  the  personal 
waywardness  and  recklessness  of  character  of  Martin  Luther 
and  the  political  ambition  and  inordinate  greed  of  princes  and 

'Ch,  V.  25. 


THE  GREAT  OBSTACLE  415 

barons."  The  Reformation  was  the  inevitable  result  of  the 
intolerable  usurpations  of  the  Popes  which  the  Councils  of 
Constance  and  Basle  tried  in  vain  to  resist  and  restrict.  The 
Reformers  sustained  by  the  Catholic  emperor  and  all  irenic 
divines  demanded  another  Council  to  reform  the  Church. 
The  Protestants  declined  eventually  to  attend  the  Council  of 
Trent  because  their  doctrine  had  been  condemned  already  in 
their  absence  and  there  was  no  possibility  of  their  getting  a 
decent  hearing. 

If  we  should  grant  that  the  Roman  Church  had  the  right 
to  continue  to  hold  (Ecumenical  Councils  after  the  greater 
part  of  Christianity  refused  its  absolutism;  and  that  it  had 
a  right  to  make  binding  decisions  of  doctrines  of  Faith  and 
Morals,  and  to  exclude  from  the  discussion  the  representatives 
of  the  separated  bodies  that  it  regarded  as  schismatic  and 
heretical;  and  that  the  only  thing  they  can  now  consistently 
do  is  to  invite  the  representatives  of  these  bodies  to  a  friendly 
conference  in  any  future  Council ;  then  Christian  courtesy  as 
well  as  Christian  prudence,  in  view  of  the  vast  importance  of 
the  reunion  of  Christendom,  should  induce  the  Popes,  as  I 
doubt  not  the  Archbishop  of  St.  Paul  would  agree,  to  strain 
the  bonds  of  charity  to  their  utmost  extent;  not  to  take  advan- 
tage of  the  necessities  of  the  Greeks  as  they  did  at  the  Coun- 
cil of  Florence;  or  to  decide  the  most  important  questions  as 
they  did  at  Trent  before  inviting  the  Protestants  to  appear  as 
already  condemned  before  them;  but  to  give  them  a  full, 
attentive,  patient  and  loving  hearing,  with  an  earnest  desire 
to  remove  all  their  difficulties  so  far  as  truth  and  honour  per- 
mitted. The  reopening  of  doctrinal  and  institutional  ques- 
tions already  decided  by  papal  or  conciliar  decrees  does  not 
in  itself  imply  any  question  of  their  authority;  but  it  raises 
the  question  whether  these  may  not  be  restated,  as  many 
others  have  often  been  in  the  history  of  the  Church,  in  such 
simple,  comprehensive  and  irenic  terms  as  to  remove  diffi- 
culties and  win  acceptance.  I  firmly  believe  that  such  a  thing 
is  possible,  if  only  the  one  great  obstacle  to  the  reunion  of 
Christendom  could  be  removed. 


416  CHURCH   UNITY 

The  amiable  prelate  of  St.  Paul  does  not  appreciate  the 
serious  difficulties  that  confront  the  Protestant  mind  as  it  re- 
calls the  mischief  wrought  in  the  world  by  the  insistence  of 
the  Roman  Curia  upon  its  absolute  and  unlimited  juris- 
diction, and  its  reinsistence  in  a  most  offensive  way  in  the 
attacks  on  Modernism  and  in  the  establishment  of  the  New 
Inquisition. 

IV.    THE  RIGHT  OF  REFORMATION  AND  REVOLUTION 

The  position  that  I  have  taken  with  reference  to  the  papacy 
is  that  of  many  of  the  most  eminent  Protestant  divines,  such 
as  Melanchthon,  Grotius  and  Leibnitz,  who,  in  their  time, 
seriously  considered  the  problem  of  the  reunion  of  Christen- 
dom and  earnestly  laboured  for  its  accomplishment.  All 
irenic  movements,  however  successful  they  have  been  in  rec- 
onciling differences  of  doctrine  and  institution,  have  been 
wrecked  on  one  and  the  same  rock  of  offence.  Those  who 
recognise  the  historic  and  valid  jurisdiction  of  the  Papacy,  in 
accordance  with  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour 
and  the  consent  of  the  ancient  Catholic  Church,  are  not  there- 
by compelled  to  acknowledge  an  unlimited  jurisdiction,  such 
as  was  claimed  by  the  Popes  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth 
centuries.  We  recognise  the  jurisdiction  of  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  but  that  jurisdiction  is  defined  by  the  Con- 
stitution of  our  country,  and  if  he  overstep  these  definitions  we 
do  not  hesitate  to  condemn  him  and  resist  him.  The  Ameri- 
can Colonies  recognised  the  supreme  jurisdiction  of  the  King 
of  England,  but  when  he  exceeded  the  constitutional  limits 
of  his  jurisdiction  and  committed  acts  of  oppression  and 
tyranny,  the  American  Colonies  rebelled  and  in  the  Revo- 
lution established  the  United  States  of  America  as  a  separate 
nation.  So  in  the  Christian  Church,  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Pope  is  limited  by  the  divine  teaching  of  Holy  Scripture  and 
by  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Christian  fathers.  This  limi- 
tation is  incidentally  and  implicitly  contained  in  the  decrees 
of  the  Vatican  Council, 


THE  GREAT   OBSTACLE  417 

If  the  Popes  transgress  these  limits,  do  they  not  justify  re- 
sistance and,  if  necessary,  revolution  ? 

The  great  Reformation  of  the  seventeenth  century  had  its 
historic  necessity  in  the  failures  of  the  pre-Reformation 
Church.  For  several  generations  the  Church  had  been  in 
throes  of  Reformation ;  not  only  in  the  struggles  of  a  host  of 
Reformers  before  the  Reformation,  to  purify  the  spiritual  life 
of  the  Church,  but  also  in  the  efforts  of  great  reforming  coun- 
cils, Pisa,  Constance  and  Basle.  But  all  in  vain,  the  Papacy 
was  the  fountain  source  of  corruption,  and  the  Popes  re- 
fused to  reform  themselves.  "They  shut  the  Kingdom  of 
God  against  men.  They  would  not  enter  themselves,  neither 
suffer  them  that  were  entering  to  enter." 

In  Germany,  Martin  Luther,  an  Augustinian  monk,  doctor 
of  theology  and  professor  in  the  University  of  Wittenberg, 
was  confronted  by  Tetzel,  a  coarse  Dominican  monk,  to  whom 
had  been  committed  by  the  Archbishop  Albrecht  of  Mainz 
the  sale  of  indulgences  in  Germany  for  the  rebuilding  of  St. 
Peter's  at  Rome.  His  preaching  and  conduct  were  most 
scandalous.  Luther,  as  an  authorised  teacher  of  the  Church, 
was  simply  doing  his  duty  in  opposing  him.  But,  unfortu- 
nately, Tetzel  was  sustained  by  an  unscrupulous  Archbishop, 
and  finally  by  the  Pope;  and  Luther  was  compelled  to  defend 
the  Holy  Church  against  the  Pope  himself.  He  appealed  from 
the  Pope  ill-informed  to  the  Pope  well-informed,  and  finally 
to  a  Christian  Council.  What  were  the  Reformers  of  Ger- 
many to  do  under  these  circumstances  ? 

As  Dr.  Schaff  says:  "The  Roman  Church  at  the  critical 
moment  resisted  reform  with  all  her  might,  and  forced  the 
issue:  either  no  reformation  at  all,  or  a  reformation  in  oppo- 
sition to  Rome."  The  Reformers  were  compelled  by  the 
Pope  to  choose  between  a  Holy  Church  without  universality 
and  a  corrupt  Church  having  universality;  between  the  Pope 
and  Jesus  Christ;  between  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the 
Church;  between  an  enlightened  Christian  conscience  and 
submission  to  an  absolute,  immoral  will;  between  vital  union 
and  communion  with  the  living  God,  and  a  communion  with 


418  CHURCH  UNITY 

God  which  could  only  be  secured  through  the  mediation  of 
a  corrupt  priesthood. 

It  is  possible  that  the  German  reformers  should  have  been 
more  patient;  that  they  should  have  gone  on  waiting  as  did 
their  predecessors;  that  Luther  might  have  served  his  gener- 
ation better  by  dying  at  the  stake  rather  than  by  rending  the 
Church.  But,  in  fact,  the  German  Reformers,  in  the  interest 
of  a  Holy  Church,  became  Protestants;  and  their  protest 
remains  valid  until  the  Church  of  Rome  shall  reform  itself 
more  thoroughly  than  it  has  yet  done. 

The  divorce  of  Queen  Catherine  from  Henry  VHI  was  an 
unholy  deed,  disgraceful  to  Cranmer  and  to  the  English 
Reformation.  But  underlying  it,  there  was  a  principle  of 
essential  importance — namely,  whether  the  English  crown 
was  to  be  subordinated  to  Papal  authority  and  its  interests 
sacrificed  for  Roman  politics.  On  that  question  the  Papacy 
was  in  the  wrong;  and  the  English  people  were  not  in  rebellion 
against  the  Catholic  Church,  when  they  insisted  that  the 
supreme  jurisdiction  of  the  Church  did  not  extend  into  the 
sphere  of  civil  government.  It  seemed  to  most  of  the  Eng- 
lish Reformers  that  it  was  necessary  to  sacrifice  Catholic 
universality  in  the  interests  of  national  autonomy.  The  Holy 
Church  had  been  submerged  in  Rome  in  a  vile  Macchiavelian 
State.  The  Popes  of  the  sixteenth  century  exhibited  more  of 
the  spirit  of  the  Caesars  than  of  the  Apostles  of  Christ.  The 
English  Reformation  at  its  start  simply  followed  the  com- 
mand of  Jesus:  *' Render  unto  Caesar  the  things  that  are 
Csesar^s  and  unto  God  the  things  that  are  (rod's."* 

The  Christian  principle  of  authority  is  the  authority  of 
love,  the  authority  of  truth  and  justice.  So  far  as  the  suc- 
cessor of  St.  Peter  held  supreme  authority,  according  to  primi- 
tive Christian  thought,  it  was  a  primacy  in  love.  The  Pope 
as  successor  of  St.  Peter  was  servus  servorumy  the  greatest  of 
all  as  being  the  servant  of  all.  The  Papacy  had  become  by 
gradual  usurpation  the  very  reverse  of  Jesus'  institution, 
dominiLs  dominorurrij  lording  it  over  kings  and  emperors  to 

*  Lk.  XX.  25. 


THE  GREAT  OBSTACLE  419 

an  extent  conceived  only  by  the  arch-tempter  of  our  Lord 
himself.  St.  Peter,  in  spite  of  faithful  warning,  denied  his 
Lord.  He  was  sifted  as  wheat  by  Satan,  but  his  faith  did  not 
fail;  he  repented,  and  strengthened  his  brethren  as  the  heroic 
leader  in  the  first  establishment  of  the  Christian  Church.  St. 
Peter's  successors,  in  spite  of  like  ample  warning,  could  not 
resist  the  devil  when  he  showed  "all  the  kingdoms  of  the 
world  and  the  glory  of  them."  The  Papacy  made  a  still  more 
disastrous  fall,  which  weakened  the  Catholic  Church,  re- 
tarded its  growth  for  centuries  and  brought  it  to  the  brink 
of  ruin. 

England,  as  it  seemed  at  the  time,  had  to  choose  between 
the  lordship  of  the  Pope  and  the  Lordship  of  Christ;  between 
Canon  Law  and  God's  Law;  between  the  liberty  of  sonship 
to  God  and  the  bondage  of  papal  absolutism.  It  is  possible 
to  think  that  the  English  Reformers  should  have  been  more 
patient,  that  they  should  have  used  spiritual  forces  only,  that 
they  should  have  preferred  death  at  the  stake  rather  than  have 
relied  upon  absolute  monarchs  and  self-seeking  courtiers, 
and  be  compelled  to  share  in  a  reform  which  was,  in  its  civil 
relations,  downright  robbery  of  God  and  murder  of  holy 
innocents.  But,  in  fact,  when  forced  to  meet  the  issue,  the 
English  Reformers  bravely  met  it.  They  determined  upon 
Reform  with  the  best  weapons  they  had  at  hand.  They  sank 
deep  in  the  mire  of  civil  corruption,  but  they  gave  us  a  re- 
formed national  Church  of  England.  The  papacy  cannot 
excuse  itself  from  blame  for  whatever  evils  sprang  out  of  the 
situation,  which  it  forced  upon  British  Christianity. 

We  are  now  in  the  twentieth  century,  not  the  sixteenth. 
The  situation  has  entirely  changed.  Rome  no  longer  de- 
fends Tetzel,  or  the  abuses  which  provoked  the  Reformation 
in  Germany.  Rome  has  been  chastened  by  the  discipline 
of  history.  Every  shred  of  temporal  power  has  been  stripped 
from  the  papacy.  No  country  is  in  any  peril  of  papal  usurpa- 
tion. It  is  true  that  in  St.  Peter's  on  great  functions  one  has 
heard  the  roar  from  assembled  pilgrims  and  clerics,  **  Viva  il 
papa  re,'*    But  this  is  a  theatrical  display,  a  mere  outburst  of 


420  CHURCH  UNITY 

clerical  enthusiasm,  having  no  reality  in  it.  The  present 
Pope  Pius  X  has  happily  forbidden  it.  But  in  his  recent 
utterance  he  is  more  absolute  in  his  authority  than  many  of 
his  predecessors. 

There  were  other  and  in  some  respects  greater  Reformers 
in  the  sixteenth  century  than  the  more  popular  heroes, 
Luther,  Zwingli  and  Cranmer.  Sir  Thomas  More,  the 
greatest  jurist  of  his  time.  Lord  Chancellor  of  England,  a 
chief  leader  of  reform  before  Cranmer,  resigned  his  exalted 
position  and  went  to  the  block  rather  than  recognise  the 
supreme  authority  of  the  King  in  ecclesiastical  affairs;  a  true 
knight,  a  martyr  to  the  separation  of  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction.  Erasmus,  the  greatest  scholar  of  his  age,  re- 
garded by  many  as  the  real  father  of  the  Reformation,  the 
teacher  of  the  Swiss  Reformers,  was  unwilling  to  submerge 
learning  and  morals  in  an  ocean  of  human  blood.  He  urged 
reformation,  not  revolution.  He  has  been  crucified  for  cen- 
turies in  popular  Protestant  opinion  as  a  politic  time-server, 
but  undoubtedly  he  was  the  most  comprehensive  reformer  of 
them  all.  John  von  Staupitz,  Doctor  of  Theology,  Vicar- 
General  of  the  German  Augustinians,  the  teacher  of  Luther 
and  his  counsellor  in  the  early  stages  of  his  reform,  a  man 
without  a  stain  and  above  reproach,  a  saint  in  the  common 
estimation  of  Protestant  and  Catholic  alike,  the  best  exponent 
of  the  piety  of  his  age,  was  an  apostle  of  Holy  Love  and  good 
works,  which  he  would  not  sacrifice  in  the  interests  of  the 
Protestant  dogma  of  justification  by  faith  only.  These  three 
immortals,  who  did  not  separate  themselves  from  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  who  remained  in  the  Church  to  patiently 
carry  on  the  work  of  reform  therein — these  three  were  the 
irenic  spirits,  the  heroic  representatives  of  all  that  is  truly 
Catholic,  the  beacons  of  the  greater  Reformation  which  is 
impending. 


THE  GREAT  OBSTACLE  421 


V.  A  CONSTITUTIONALISED  PAPACY 

The  ground  on  which  alone  a  reunion  is  possible,  is  that 
stated  by  the  greatest  of  all  Catholic  peacemakers,  Cassander, 
who  in  1564,  at  the  request  of  the  Emperor  Ferdinand  and  his 
son  Maximilian,  proposed  a  platform  of  reconciliation  in 
which  he  urged  the  limitation  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  popes, 
to  that  which  Jesus  Christ  prescribed  in  the  Gospel  and  the 
primitive  Church  recognised.  The  pathway  to  reunion  is  a 
constitutionalised  Papacy.  The  policy  of  unlimited  juris- 
diction resulted  in  the  forfeiture  of  jurisdiction  altogether 
for  the  greater  part  of  the  Christian  world. 

The  strength  of  the  separated  Christian  Churches  has 
greatly  increased  since  the  sixteenth  century.  The  Greek 
Church  is  no  longer  in  that  terrible  crisis  which  in  the  fif- 
teenth century  compelled  the  Greek  Emperor  to  seek  recon- 
ciliation with  Rome,  it  has  the  great  Russian  Empire  at  its 
back.  The  Protestant  bodies  no  longer  are  on  the  defensive 
in  ruinous  religious  wars,  they  have  the  three  most  powerful 
nations  in  the  world  on  their  side,  Germany,  Great  Britain 
and  the  United  States.  The  Catholic  nations  are  all  feeble 
in  comparison,  and  two  of  the  most  important  of  these, 
France  and  Italy,  are  in  open  war  with  the  Papacy,  in  which 
the  majority  of  voters,  nominally  Catholic,  are  arrayed 
against  the  authorities  of  their  own  Church;  and  in  several 
other  Catholic  nations  the  incipient  stages  of  a  similar  con- 
flict are  easy  to  be  seen.  I  am  not  proposing  to  discuss  the 
rights  and  wrongs  of  these  controversies.  In  many  cases, 
both  in  ancient  and  modern  times,  the  popes  have  been  con- 
tending for  their  just,  historic  rights.  But  the  difficulty  in 
many  cases  has  been  that  excessive  claims  have  weakened  the 
force  of  rightful  claims.  He  who  claims  too  much  is  usually 
in  danger  of  losing  all. 

When  one  contemplates  the  happy  condition  of  the  Catholic 
Church  in  the  United  States  and  compares  it  with  the  sad 
condition  of  the  Catholic  Church  in  the  Catholic  countries 


422  CHURCH  UNITY 

of  Europe,  one  can  hardly  escape  the  conclusion  that  the 
chief  reason  for  the  difference  is  that  the  papacy  does  not 
attempt  to  exercise  such  an  unlimited  jurisdiction  in  the 
United  States  as  it  battles  for  in  the  Catholic  countries  of 
Europe. 

The  policy  of  unlimited  jurisdiction  and  absolute  submis- 
sion weakens  the  power  of  the  Catholic  Church.  In  a  con- 
versation with  the  present  Pope  a  few  years  ago,  we  were 
talking  of  the  obstacles  to  the  reunion  of  Christendom.  I 
said  to  him  that  if  the  obstacles  were  to  be  removed  there 
must  be  freedom  to  investigate  their  difficulties.  He  said 
that  all  reasonable  freedom  of  investigation  should  be  given. 
If  only  the  Pope  would  in  some  way  make  good  his  word  and 
guarantee  the  Catholic  scholars  reasonable  liberty  of  in- 
vestigation of  the  great  problems  that  divide  Christendom 
and  obstruct  the  unity  of  the  Church,  I  am  sure  that  a  splen- 
did array  of  Catholic  scholars  would  spring  up  and,  joining 
hands  with  Protestant  scholars  of  the  same  spirit,  the  hard 
problems  would  be  solved  and  the  unity  of  the  Church  be 
secured.  Scholarship  demands  liberty;  it  cannot  thrive 
under  a  policy  of  suppression,  and  absolute  submission  to  an 
unlimited  jurisdiction,  and  immeasurable  claims  which  may 
easily  be  extended  to  cover  any  and  every  traditional  opinion 
of  scholastic  philosophy,  mediaeval  law  and  patristic  exe- 
gesis. 

The  claim  to  an  unlimited  jurisdiction  by  the  papacy  may 
be  justly  challenged  because  the  papal  administration  is  not 
sufficiently  well  organised  to  give  just  and  valid  decisions  of 
all  questions.  It  is  not  the  pope  himself  who  makes  the 
decisions,  but  the  congregations  into  which  the  Roman  ad- 
ministration is  organised.  The  pope  simply  endorses  their 
action  as  an  executive,  if  he  does  not  veto  it  or  postpone  it. 
Under  these  conditions  the  pope  is  only  nominally  respon- 
sible, we  cannot  be  sure  that  the  decisions  express  his  mature 
and  final  judgment. 

These  congregations  are  comjxjsed,  as  everyone  knows, 
chiefly  of  Italians,  and  these  in  large  part  from  Southern 


THE  GREAT  OBSTACLE  423 

Italy.  From  the  very  nature  of  the  case  they  look  at  every- 
thing from  a  provincial  and  Italian  point  of  view :  they  can- 
not put  off  the  characteristics  of  their  race,  their  nationality 
and  their  Italian  training.  It  is  not  a  question  now  of  the 
pope,  but  of  the  cardinals  and  monsignori  who  reside  in 
Rome  and  the  other  humbler  members  of  the  congregations 
who  transact  the  business  of  the  Church.  They  do  not 
belong  to  the  divine  constitution  of  the  Church,  but  to  the 
human  side  of  it.  History  and  experience  show  that  they 
are  very  human.  The  question  is  not  of  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  Pope,  but  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Curia,  of  the  black  pope 
and  the  red  pope,  and  of  little  popes  of  every  colour  and 
shape,  who  administer  the  affairs  of  the  Church  with  an 
arbitrariness  and  tyranny  that  the  popes  themselves,  owing 
to  their  more  serious  responsibilities,  would  not  think  of. 

These  counsellors  of  the  popes  are  often  not  those  whom 
he  would  prefer,  but  an  inheritance  from  one  or  more  pre- 
vious administrations.  These  not  infrequently  advise  him  in 
their  own  interests  and  not  in  that  of  the  Church;  and  they 
sometimes  by  indirection  obstruct  and  thwart  his  policy; 
and  they  are  ever  especially  hostile  to  any  and  every  kind  of 
reform.  Entrenched  in  Rome  and  perpetuating  themselves 
from  generation  to  generation  they  are  now,  as  they  ever  have 
been,  the  petty  tyrants  of  the  Catholic  world.  In  any  other 
matter  than  religion,  Roman  Catholics  would  regard  it  as 
intolerable  that  all  questions  should  be  decided  by  men  of 
another  nation  with  a  demand  for  absolute  submission. 

When  one  considers  the  qualifications  of  the  Curia  one 
must  admit  their  very  great  ability  and  learning  in  canon 
law,  in  the  ceremonies  of  the  Church  and  in  scholastic  the- 
ology, but  they  are  sadly  deficient  in  Biblical  and  historical 
scholarship.  In  fact,  a  very  considerable  number  of  the 
greatest  Biblical  scholars  and  historians  of  the  Catholic 
Church  have  been  and  now  are  in  discredit  at  Rome,  and 
many  of  their  best  works  have  been  put  on  the  Index.  The 
Curia  is  altogether  disqualified  to  make  decisions  in  an  im- 
mense range  of  questions  that  interest  the  modern  world. 


424  CHURCH   UNITY 

Furthermore,  the  Curia  is  antiquated  in  its  methods  as 
well  as  in  its  organisation.  These  have  nothing  whatever  to 
do  with  the  divine  constitution  of  the  Church.  It  is  entirely 
within  the  authority  of  the  pope  to  transform  these  admin- 
istrations and  methods,  modernise  them  and  make  them 
more  efficient.  The  Pope  has  in  a  measure  made  great 
reforms  in  the  Curia  during  the  past  year;  but  these 
are  all  in  the  direction  of  absolutism,  not  of  elasticity 
and  freedom.  But  as  they  are  at  present,  a  Catholic  scholar 
has  the  right  to  challenge  their  competence  in  many  things 
without  disrespect  to  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  and  with- 
out raising  any  question  as  to  the  divine  constitution  of  the 
Church. 

I  must  think  the  Archbishop  of  St.  Paul  agrees  with  me  in 
recognition  of  many  of  the  mistakes  of  the  Curia  and  of  the 
Pope:  but  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  on  his  principle  of  recog- 
nising in  theory  the  absolute  supremacy  of  the  Pope,  the 
Church  can  have  any  guarantee  for  the  present  or  the  future 
against  the  repetition  of  these  evils.     The  Archbishop  says: 

Counsellors  the  pope  will  gather  about  him,  vicars  and  delegates  he 
will  have,  to  divide  with  him  the  labors  of  his  oflBce,  but  the  supreme 
master,  and  last  resort  he  will  ever  remain. 

If  this  statement  be  correct,  the  Pope  is  essentially  an  abso- 
lute sovereign  with  no  one  on  earth  to  check  his  will ;  he  may 
be  a  Gregory  the  Great  or  he  may  be  a  Borgia.  Who  can 
tell?  . 

But  in  fact  the  Archbishop  does  not  really  hold  to  such  an 
unlimited  jurisdiction.  In  his  discussion  of  details  he  agrees 
so  closely  with  what  I  have  said  that  I  see  no  valid  reason 
why  we  might  not  eventually  agree  altogether.  I  am  in- 
clined to  think  that  he  represents  fairly  well  the  real  views 
of  the  present  pontiff.  The  Archbishop  limits  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  papacy  by  ruling  out  *' Jurisdiction  in  civil  affairs, 
and  dominion  over  civil  government";  by  agreeing  to  a  limita- 
tion of  the  papal  domain  to  a  limited  territory,  such  as  the 
District  of  Columbia,  and  by  agreeing  to  a  number  of  other 


THE  GREAT   OBSTACLE  425 

limitations  with  certain  qualifications  that  seem  for  the  most 
part  quite  reasonable.     I  cordially  accept  the  statement: 

If  purely  civil  matters  are  in  issue  the  pope  has  no  right  whatsoever 
to  give  directions  to  Catholics.  .  .  .  That  the  question  changes  when 
issues  under  consideration  are  such  as  appertain  to  the  religious  con- 
science and  demand  solution  in  the  light  of  religious  principle.  .  .  .  That 
the  papacy  possesses  no  right  to  determine  questions  of  science  and 
philosophy,  or  sociology  and  economics;  the  realm  of  the  papacy  is 
faith  and  morals,  that  much  and  nothing  more.  The  situation  changes, 
of  course,  when  speculation  clothed  in  the  garb  of  science  and  philoso- 
phy, of  sociology  and  economics,  soars  into  the  domain  of  faith  and  mor- 
als and  challenges  the  church  within  its  own  sphere. 

If  the  Archbishop  is  correct,  and  I  think  he  is,  that  the  present 
Pope  himself  really  holds  to  such  limitations  of  authority, 
what  reasonable  objection  can  there  be  to  put  such  and  the 
like  limitations  in  the  form  of  a  written  constitution  in  order  to 
keep  aggressive  spirits  within  those  limits  ?  Such  a  constitu- 
tion would  not  deprive  the  popes  of  any  of  their  Biblical  or 
historical  rights,  but  might  save  future  popes,  and  more 
especially  the  Curia,  from  repeating  the  errors  and  blunders 
of  the  past.  It  would  have  prevented  the  issue  of  the  recent 
Syllabus  and  Encyclica.  It  would  prevent  the  issue  of  an- 
other Syllabus  and  Encyclica  against  Modern  Thought  and 
Modern  Methods.  It  would  do  away  with  the  spirit  of  false- 
hood and  delation,  the  spirit  of  domination  and  persecution, 
the  spirit  of  avarice  and  greed,  the  spirit  of  immobility  and 
reaction — all  these  evil  spirits  which  are  now  so  powerful 
in  the  Curia  as  to  overawe  and  control  such  a  devout  and 
high-minded  man  as  Pius  X.  Still  more,  such  a  constitu- 
tion would  do  much  to  conciliate  many  of  those  who  cannot 
in  good  conscience  submit  to  the  papacy  under  present  con- 
ditions. It  would,  in  my  opinion,  remove  the  greatest 
barrier  to  the  reunion  of  Christendom. 


XV 

THE  PASSING  AND  THE  COMING  CHRISTIANITY 

It  is  evident  to  intelligent  observers  that  Christianity  is 
passing  through  a  process  of  change  which  is  gradually  trans- 
forming it.  Provincial,  denominational,  national  and  racial 
types  of  Christianity  are  confronted  as  never  before  in  Chris- 
tian history  with  other  great  historic  religions  of  the  world; 
with  various  races  and  peoples  unknown  to  those  who  formu- 
lated the  current  doctrines  and  organised  the  existing  institu- 
tions of  Christianty,  and  the  Church  is  obliged  to  adapt  itself 
to  these  new  conditions  and  circumstances  of  the  greater 
world  and  the  greater  universe  as  made  known  by  modern 
Science.  The  Christianity  of  former  days  is  passing,  modern 
types  of  Christianity  are  springing  up  and  asserting  them- 
selves, and  we  are  obliged  to  ask  what  the  Christianity  of  the 
future  will  be. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Newman  Smythe  has  recently  published  a 
volume  entitled  Passing  Protestantism  and  Coming  Catholi- 
cism. This  volume  has  an  intermediate  section  entitled 
Mediating  Modernism.  These  terms  afford  a  convenient 
frame  on  which  to  discuss  the  subject  I  have  in  hand,  although 
they  need  explanation  and  qualification.  But  it  is  just  in 
this  explanation  and  qualification  that  I  may  best  under 
present  circumstances  show  that  Modernism,  however  much 
discord  it  may  seem  to  produce,  is  really  gradually  dissolving 
the  discord  of  Christianity  and  preparing  the  way  for  the  Re- 
union of  Christendom. 

There  is  a  sense  in  which  Protestantism  is  passing.  It  is 
not  meant  that  Protestantism  is  passing  away  as  a  temporary, 
transient,  and  in  the  great  eternal  of  Christianity  a  relatively 

426 


THE   PASSING   AND  THE  COMING   CHRISTIANITY         427 

unimportant  episode,  an  abnormal  thing,  another  of  the 
failures  of  history,  as  some  of  its  enemies  would  have  it. 
Protestantism  is  not  passing  away^  it  is  passing  on  and  passing 
over,  with  all  its  great  accomplishments  for  Christianity,  into 
something  higher  and  better,  the  ideal  Christianity  of  Jesus 
Christ  himself. 

What  is  meant  by  Coming  Catholicism  is  not  so  plain,  for 
Catholicism  in  its  very  nature  is  a  thing  of  the  past.  The 
Christian  Church  was  Catholic  in  the  second  and  third  cen- 
turies, when  the  term  gained  a  significance  it  has  never  lost. 
Through  all  history  the  Church  of  Christ  has  been*  Catholic, 
it  is  Catholic  at  present,  and  it  will  always  remain  Catholic. 
What  is  meant  is,  that  the  Catholicism  of  the  future,  the 
Catholicism  that  is  coming,  will  be  of  a  higher  and  nobler 
type  than  the  Catholicism  that  has  existed  in  the  past,  or 
that  now  exists  in  the  present.  We  should  banish  from  our 
minds  those  narrow  views  of  Catholicism  represented  by  such 
terms  as  Catholic  Presbyterian,  Anglo-Catholic,  and  Roman 
Catholic;  and  think  of  that  Christianity  which,  while  semper 
vbique  et  ab  omnibus,  is  yet  ever  advancing  under  the  reign  of 
Christ  and  the  lead  of  the  divine  Spirit,  into  deeper  and 
richer  religious  experience,  higher  and  broader  comprehen- 
sion of  divine  truths  and  facts,  and  more  energetic  and  ex- 
pansive Christian  activities,  as  the  Kingdom  of  God  pro- 
ceeds in  its  conquest  of  the  world  for  Christ. 

The  term  Mediating  Modernism  is  true  also  in  a  sense,  but 
with  qualifications.  It  is  easy,  on  the  one  hand,  to  exaggerate 
its  importance,  and  on  the  other  to  depreciate  it.  It  is  not 
true  that  Roman  Catholic  Modernism  is  to  mediate  the 
passing  of  Protestantism  into  the  Coming  Catholicism.  But 
it  is  true  that  Roman  Catholic  Modernism,  in  a  measure  at 
least,  is  mediating  the  reformation  of  the  Roman  Church,  and 
thereby  the  transformation  of  Roman  Catholicism  into  the 
Coming  Catholicism. 


428  CHURCH  UNITY 


I.  PASSING  PROTESTANTISM 

What  is  Protestantism  ?  The  Protestant  reformers  thought 
they  knew  what  they  were  about,  and  they  certainly  accom- 
plished something  in  Christian  History.  And  yet  we  are  told 
that  Schleiermacher,  three  centuries  after  the  beginning  of 
the  Reformation,  was  the  first  to  detect  its  fundamental  prin- 
ciple. So  writers  of  the  same  school  tell  us  for  the  first  time 
what  is  the  essence  of  Christianity,  or  rather,  its  quintessence, 
as  Loisy  justly  calls  it:  something  which  they  get  by  distilling 
Historical  Christianity  and  the  Christianity  of  Jesus  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  until  all  that  is  characteristic  of  the  Bible 
and  the  Church  has  evaporated,  and  nothing  is  left  but  a 
residuum  that  is  not  Christianity  at  all — an  abstraction  which 
never  did  exist,  or  can  exist  apart  from  the  brain  that  first 
discovered  it,  or  those  brains  which  may  be  induced  to  accept 
it  as  a  substitute  for  that  Historical  Christianity  from  which 
they  have  already  broken. 

At  one  time  I  was  greatly  impressed  by  Neander's  antithe- 
sis, that  Protestantism  stands  for  immediate  communion  with 
God,  Roman  Catholicism  for  mediate  communion.  But 
reflection  soon  convinced  me  that  this  antithesis,  like  most 
other  antitheses,  however  striking  and  taking  they  may  be, 
is  yet  .too  simple  to  correspond  with  the  complex  realities  of 
truth  and  fact.  So  far  as  there  is  a  difference  between  the 
two  great  bodies  of  Christians  at  this  point,  it  is  a  relative 
difference  and  not  an  antithetical  one.  I  have  conversed 
with  many  Roman  Catholic  scholars  on  this  subject,  but  I 
have  never  met  one  who  recognised  this  antithesis  as  valid. 
The  only  Protestants,  of  whom  it  can  be  said  that  they  make 
immediate  communion  with  God  the  only  real  communion, 
to  the  exclusion  of  Bible,  Church  and  Sacraments  as  means 
of  grace,  are  the  mystical  Anabaptists  of  the  Reformation, 
the  English  Quakers,  and  modern  Rationalists,  who  are  not 
Protestants  at  all,  whom  Luther  and  Calvin  and  all  the  Re- 
formers would  have  rejected  without  hesitation  from  genuine 


THE   PASSING   AND  THE  COMING   CHRISTIANITY         429 

Protestantism.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  repudiates  the  thought  that  it  denies  immediate  com- 
munion with  God.  All  the  Catholic  orders  cry  out  against 
such  an  idea,  the  Jesuit  order  no  less,  in  some  respects  even 
more,  than  the  others.  The  recent  Papal  rebuke  of  Ameri- 
canism for  its  exaltation  of  the  active  virtues  over  the  passive 
virtues,  and  the  Vatican  insistence  upon  the  value  of  the  pas- 
sive virtues  of  retirement  from  the  world,  religious  meditation, 
long  and  frequent  hours  of  prayer,  together  with  the  practice 
of  the  counsels  of  perfection,  is  an  additional  evidence  of  this. 
It  is  quite  true  that  the  Roman  Catholics  emphasise  the 
mediation  of  Church,  and  priesthood,  and  sacrament  more 
than  the  Protestants;  but  it  is  not  true  that  the  Protestant 
emphasises  immediate  communion  with  God  more  than  the 
Roman  Catholic,  except  so  far  as  the  common  people  are 
concerned.  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  at  this  point  occupies  the  more  comprehensive  plat- 
form, and  one  which  is  truer  to  historical  Christianity,  and 
one  toward  which  modern  Christianity  in  Great  Britain 
and  America  is  tending,  rather  than  the  narrower  plank 
upon  which  an  illegitimate  Protestantism  would  have  us 
stand. 

The  principles  of  Protestantism  which  have  been  taught  by 
most  modern  divines,  are  the  formal  principle,  the  Authority 
of  Holy  Scripture,  and  the  material  principle.  Justification  by 
Faith.  These  principles  shine  forth  from  the  very  face  of 
Protestantism  in  all  lands,  and  in  all  its  great  leaders,  and  are 
distinctly  expressed  in  all  Protestant  Confessions,  however 
distasteful  they  may  be  to  those  who  would  be  Protestant 
without  these  principles.  Here  again  we  are  presented  with 
convenient  antitheses:  the  Authority  of  Holy  Scripture  in 
antithesis  with  the  Authority  of  Holy  Church;  Justification 
by  Faith  in  antithesis  with  Justification  by  Works.  But  are 
these  antitheses  altogether  just  ?  Were  they  altogether  right 
at  the  time  of  the  Reformation  ?  Are  they  altogether  true  at  the 
present  time  ?  Polemic  divines,  looking  at  the  question  from 
one  side,  may  say,  yes;   but  Irenic  scholars,  who  look  at  it 


430  CHURCH   UNITY 

from  all  sides,  must  say,  no.  It  is  not  true  that  Roman  Catho- 
lics deny  the  sovereign  authority  of  Holy  Scripture.  It  is  not 
true  that  Protestant  Churches  deny  the  authority  of  Holy 
Church.  So  far  as  the  authority  of  the  Bible  and  the  Church 
are  concerned,  the  difference  is  as  to  the  relative  weight  of 
authority. 

It  is  indeed  the  irony  of  history  that  Rome  has  undertaken 
the  defence  of  the  inerrancy  of  Holy  Scripture  at  the  very 
time  when  it  has  been  abandoned  by  most  Protestants;  a 
doctrine  indeed  which  none  of  the  Protestant  Reformers  ever 
held  or  taught,  but  which  scholastics,  whether  Protestant  or 
Roman,  insist  upon  maintaining  in  defiance  of  the  facts  of  the 
case.  It  is  also  significant  that  some  people  are  going  over  to 
Rome  on  this  very  ground,  that  Rome  is  maintaining  the  su- 
premacy of  Scripture  when  Protestants  are  weakening  its 
authority.  So  far  as  the  authority  of  the  Church  is  con- 
cerned, Protestant  ecclesiastical  bodies,  in  modern  times, 
while  denying  the  infallibility  of  the  Church,  do  not  hesitate 
to  magnify  the  authority  of  the  denominations  in  arrogant 
and  tyrannical  ways  that  would  bring  the  blush  even  to 
Rome.  Little  popes  are  often  more  unscrupulous  than  the 
great  pope. 

The  problems  of  religious  authority,  certainty,  and  infalli- 
bility, are  difficult  and  delicate  problems,  which  are  in  a  more 
unsettled  condition  to-day  than  ever.  These  problems  have 
not  been  solved  either  by  Rome,  or  by  Protestants.  Neither 
side  in  the  olden  times  gave  the  Reason  and  the  Conscience 
their  proper  value.  It  is  the  great  merit  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  in  the  reconstruction  of  theology,  of  which  Schleier- 
macher  is  rightly  regarded  as  the  father,  that  it  gave  the 
Reason  for  the  first  time  its  proper  place  and  importance  as 
a  religious  authority  of  the  first  value.  It  was  an  inevitable 
reaction  that  led  to  an  undue  exaltation  of  the  Reason,  and 
a  relative  depreciation  of  Bible  and  Church.  When  the 
Reason  has  won  its  rightful  importance  by  common  consent 
this  exaggeration  will  cease.  The  Coming  Catholicism  will 
recognise  the  divine  authority  of  Bible,  Church  and  Reason, 


THE  PASSING  AND  THE  COMING   CHRISTIANITY         431 

and  reconcile  and  harmonise  them  in  a  higher  unity,  and  in 
a  nobler  form  of  Christianity.* 

It  is  only  when  you  attach  to  Justification  by  Faith,  and 
Justification  by  Works,  the  adverb  only  that  you  get  a  real 
antithesis,  and  then  you  mistake  and  misrepresent  the  issue 
between  Protestantism  and  Rome.  When  the  Protestant 
asserts  Justification  by  Faith  onlyj  he  defines  Justification  as 
a  single  and  momentary  act  of  God.  He  does  not  deny  the 
process  of  sanctification,  or  the  necessity  of  good  works,  al- 
though his  exaggeration  of  Justification  and  Faith  in  human 
salvation  does  in  fact  tend  to  depreciate  the  value  of  sancti- 
fication and  good  works.  The  Roman  Catholic  does  not 
assert  Justification  by  Works  only,  but  affirms  that  justifica- 
tion, is  a  process,  in  which,  to  quote  the  Council  of  Trent, 
''Faith  is  the  beginning  of  human  salvation,  the  foundation 
and  root  of  all  justification."  The  Roman  Catholic  asserts 
that  love,  exerting  itself  in  good  works,  is  necessary  to  carry 
on  the  work  of  justification  to  its  completion.  It  is  evident 
that  here  is  a  difference  of  point  of  view  and  of  definition,  and 
not  of  simple  antithesis. 

It  has  become  evident  that  both  the  Protestant  and  the 
Roman  Catholic  positions  are  one-sided  and  inadequate. 
Protestant  theologians  who  have  the  modern  spirit,  recognise 
the  inadequacy  of  the  older  definitions.  Sanctification  and 
Christian  love  have  not  yet  received  their  Biblical  value, 
either  in  the  Roman  or  the  Protestant  folds.  It  is  necessary 
to  look  for  the  coming  Catholicism  in  which  Faith  and  Love, 
Justification  and  Sanctification  will  not  be  put  in  antitheses, 
but  be  reconciled  and  harmonised  in  a  higher  and  better 
Christian  doctrine  of  salvation. 

Some  theologians  find  the  essential  principle  of  Protestant- 
ism in  the  universal  priesthood  of  all  believers.  This  affords 
another  striking  antithesis  to  some  minds,  the  priesthood  of 
all  believers,  in  antithesis  to  the  ministering  priesthood, 
which  they  call  sacerdotalism.  But  this  antithesis  is  no  more 
valid  than  the  others.  It  is  quite  true  that  Protestantism  has 
»  See  pp.  243  /. 


432  CHURCH  UNITY 

greatly  emphasised  the  priesthood  of  all  believers,  and  has 
thereby  done  an  immense  service  to  the  modern  world.  But 
it  is  not  true  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  denies  such 
priesthood,  however  much  it  may  have  depreciated  it.  The 
Council  of  Trent  does  not  deny  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  the 
priesthood  of  believers,  but  the  doctrine  of  those  sects  which 
dissolve  the  Chiistian  ministry  into  this  Universal  Priest- 
hood.   The  Council  of  Trent  says: 

If  any  one  aflSrm  that  all  Christians  indiscriminately  are  priests  of  the 
New  Testament,  or  that  they  are  mutually  endowed  with  an  equal  spir- 
itual power,  he  cleariy  does  nothing  but  confound  the  ecclesiastical 
hierarchy,  which  is  as  an  army  set  in  array,  as  if,  contrary  to  the  doc- 
trine of  blessed  Paul,  "  all  were  apostles^  ail  prophets,  all  evangelists,  all 
pastors,  all  doctors."    (Sess.  xxiii.  4.) 

All  the  Churches  of  the  Reformation  insisted  upon  an 
ordained  ministry,  in  apostolic  succession,  having,  in  some 
sense,  priestly  functions.  Protestants  no  less  than  Roman 
Catholics  recognise  a  ministering  priesthood,  which  does  not 
destroy  the  priesthood  of  all  believers,  but  conserves  it.  The 
controversies  have  raged  about  the  question  of  the  nature  of 
the  priesthood.  This  is  involved  with  the  deeper  question, 
What  is  the  nature  of  the  sacrifice  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  ?  At 
the  Reformation  the  best  theologians  on  both  sides  were  ill 
informed  as  to  the  Biblical  doctrine  of  sacrifice  and  the  true 
functions  of  priesthood.  They  were  misled  by  interpreting 
priesthood  and  sacrifice  too  strictly  in  accordance  with 
mediaeval  scholastic  theories  of  the  Atonement.  Modern 
scholars,  who  understand  much  better  the  Biblical  doctrine 
of  sacrifice  and  priesthood,  look  at  these  controversies  as  to 
a  great  extent  astray  from  the  real  merits  of  the  question. 

Pope  1^0  XIII  decided  that  Anglican  orders  were  invalid, 
because  the  Anglican  fathers  were  not  ordained  as  priests  to 
offer  sacrifice.  But  the  Anglican  Archbishops  claimed  the 
reverse.  It  is  evident  that  the  difference  between  them  was 
chiefly  as  to  the  meaning  to  be  attached  to  priesthood  and 
sacrifice,  and  as  to  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  Anglican 
Ordinal,  and  the  circumstances  under  which  it  was  com- 


THE   PASSING   AND  THE  COMING   CHRISTIANITY         433 

posed  and  used.  This  difference  in  point  of  view  is  character- 
istic of  the  entire  controversy  between  Roman  ♦Catholics  and 
Protestants  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Christian  ministry  and  the 
true  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist. 

In  the  seventeenth  century  the  Puritans  battled  against  the 
Prelates  of  England  for  the  rights  of  the  Christian  f)eople, 
and  yet  the  American  Episcopal  Church  has  advanced  to  the 
position  in  which  the  laity  have  greater  representation  in  the 
government  of  the  Church  than  they  have  in  any  Presby- 
terian jurisdiction.  So  the  Roman  Church  has  advanced  and 
is  advancing  in  this  regard;  and  in  some  countries,  even  in 
Germany,  the  Roman  Catholic  laity  are  better  organised  and 
equipped  for  religious  work  than  are  the  Protestants;  and 
there  is  nothing  whatever  in  Roman  Catholic  principles  that 
will  prevent  in  the  future,  a  larger  participation  of  the  Chris- 
tian people  in  the  government  of  the  Church. 

That  which  Protestantism  has  given  to  the  modern  world 
is  not  to  be  estimated  so  much  in  terms  of  doctrine  or  theo- 
retical principles;  but  in  the  reform  of  Christian  institutions, 
the  establishment  in  a  measure  of  liberty  of  conscience,  free- 
dom of  opinion  and  its  utterance,  the  recognition  of  National 
Churches,  the  constitutionalising  of  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment, the  removal  of  superstitious  elements  from  public  and 
private  worship,  and  the  emphasis  upon  personal  responsi- 
bility for  the  religious  and  moral  life.  In  all  these  respects 
Protestantism  is  far  in  advance  of  Roman  Catholicism.  But 
there  is  no  infallible  rule  of  the  Roman  Church  which  can 
prevent  the  eventual  advance  of  Roman  Catholics  just  as 
far,  and  even  farther,  than  Protestantism  has  yet  gone  in 
these  directions. 

I  might  take  up  the  differences  between  Protestantism 
and  Rome  all  along  the  lines  of  institution  and  doctrine, 
and  show  that  Protestant  Theology  is  in  a  transition  state, 
in  a  process  of  transformation  into  something  higher  and 
better  in  the  Coming  Catholicism.  No  one  can  exaggerate 
the  great  benefits  the  Protestant  Reformation  has  conferred 


434  CHURCH  UNITY 

upon  the  modem  world;  no  one  should  undervalue  the  vast 
achievements  of  the  modern  Christian  denominations  in 
their  maintenance,  even  though  in  one-sidedness,  of  impor- 
tant elements  of  Christian  truth  and  Christian  life.  None 
of  these  will  ever  pass  away,  but  all  of  them  will  pass  over  as 
contributions  to  the  larger  and  greater  whole. 

In  all  such  transitions  there  is  peril,  anxiety,  and  a  certain 
amount  of  destruction  of  old  landmarks  and  the  ruin  of 
valued  establishments.  But  we  should  learn  from  the  past; 
and  not  lose  our  courage,  or  forfeit  our  manhood,  but  bravely 
grapple  with  the  difficulties  of  the  situation,  suffer  with 
patience  the  inevitable  consequences  of  a  sure  succession 
of  disasters,  and  be  content  and  thankful  for  a  few  successes; 
for  the  Coming  Catholicism  with  all  its  glories  is  sure.  We 
ourselves,  and  all  things  about  us,  are  in  the  grasp  of  an  un- 
erring hand,  which  will  in  the  end  overcome  all  diflBculties, 
and  firmly  establish  the  kingdom  of  God  in  a  greater  and 
grander  position.  Why  should  Protestantism  stand  off  in 
aloofness  like  the  elder  brother  of  the  parable,  wishing  the 
other  brother  to  go  on  his  way  to  perdition  ?  We  should 
look  forward  with  joy  and  confidence  to  the  time  when 
both  brothers  shall  be  reconciled  in  the  one  household  of 
God. 

The  question  is  often  asked,  How  may  we  bridge  the 
gulf  between  Protestantism  and  Rome?  It  cannot  be  done 
on  the  level  of  past  controversies,  or  of  present  differences. 
How  has  the  East  River  been  bridged?  At  first  two  huge 
towers  are  built  on  each  side  of  the  river,  then  a  slender 
wire  is  stretched  from  the  top  of  these  towers;  this  wire  gives 
place  to  cables,  then  a  foot  bridge  is  made  at  this  great  ele- 
vation. Then  months  of  labor  are  necessary  from  this  higher 
level  before  there  can  be  constructed  at  the  lower  level  the 
great  highway  which  combines  the  two  sides  in  permanent 
union.  So  will  it  be  with  the  Church.  We  must  rise  above 
the  present  low  level  of  doctrine  and  institution  into  higher 
and  more  comprehensive  positions,  and  then  some  Reformer, 
called  of  God,  will  discern  some  simple  principle  which  will 


THE  PASSING   AND  THE  COMING   CHRISTIANITY         435 

become  the  first  line  across  the  chasm,  and  then  the  bridge 
will  follow  in  good  time. 

The  antitheses  of  the  sixteenth  century  are  to  a  great  ex- 
tent antitheses  of  one-sidedness,  which  the  modem  world 
has  outgrown.  The  world  has  moved  since  then.  The 
world  has  learned  many  things.  We  have  new  views  of 
God's  universe.  We  have  new  scientific  methods.  We 
have  an  entirely  different  psychology  and  philosophy.  Our 
education  is  much  more  scientific,  much  more  thorough, 
much  more  accurate,  much  more  searching,  much  more 
comprehensive.  All  along  the  line  of  life,  institution,  dogma, 
morals,  new  situations  are  emerging,  new  questions  pressing 
for  solution;  the  perspective  is  changed,  the  lights  and 
shadows  are  differendy  distributed.  We  are  in  a  state  of 
enormous  transition,  changes  are  taking  place  whose  results 
it  is  impossible  to  foretell — reconstruction  is  in  progress  on 
the  grandest  scale.  Out  of  it  all  will  spring,  in  God's  own 
time,  a  rejuvenated,  a  reorganised,  a  truly  universal  Christian- 
ity, combining  in  a  higher  unity  all  that  is  true  and  real  and 
worthy  in  the  various  Churches  which  now  divide  the  world. 

The  great  temple  of  Christianity  has  not  yet  reached  its 
completion,  it  is  in  course  of  erection.  The  builders  are 
separated  in  different  bands  under  different  leaders,  building 
up  its  great  walls  over  against  each  other.  The  time  is  at 
hand  when  they  must  be  united.  Some  more  comprehensive 
principles  will  appear,  which  will  be  as  it  were  the  ribs  of 
a  great  dome  that  will  overarch  the  whole  and  combine  all 
sides  in  the  one  Apostolic  Catholic  Church. 

II.  THE  MEDIATING  MODERNISM 

Modernism  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  mediating, 
not  in  the  sense  of  opening  up  a  way  of  mediation  between 
Roman  and  Protestant  Christianity,  but  as  mediating  be- 
tween the  Mediaeval  Scholastic  Catholicism,  which  still,  to 
so  great  an  extent,  dominates  the  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
and  the  Coming  Catholicism, 


436  CHURCH  UNITY 

Modernism  still  continues  to  agitate  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  and  will  continue  its  work  until  it  accomplishes  its 
Providential  mission.  It  is,  indeed,  in  some  respects  the 
most  important  religious  movement  since  the  great  Reforma- 
tion of  the  sixteenth  century;  for  it  is  not  confined  to  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  but  is  world-wide  in  its  sweep,  in- 
fluencing more  or  less  all  Christian  Churches,  and  in  a  measure 
all  the  great  religions  of  the  world.  Modernism  is,  essentially, 
the  spirit  of  the  modern  age,  and  especially  the  resultant  of 
the  many  forces  which  have  been  working  with  extraordi- 
nary complexity  and  intricacy  during  the  previous  century, 
and  which  are  rapidly  approaching  a  climax  that  probably 
will  produce  one  of  the  greatest  Revolutions  and  Reformations 
of  History. 

The  battle  between  Modernism  and  the  Papacy  is  raging 
all  over  the  Christian  world.  The  despotic  attempts  of  the 
Curia  to  crush  it  have  been  vain.  Some  of  the  most  eminent 
Catholic  scholars  have  been  put  under  the  ban,  others  have 
been  excommunicated;  numbers  have  been  suspended  from 
their  priestly  functions.  Many  more  have  been  removed 
from  important  positions  of  usefulness  to  other  less  important 
positions  where  it  was  supposed  they  could  do  little  harm. 
Great  numbers  have  been  simply  silenced.  What  does  this 
all  amount  to,  however,  but  attempts  to  smother  a  flame 
which  still  burns  fiercely?  The  attempts  to  scatter  it  only 
increase  the  number  of  conflagrations. 

There  are  signs  that  a  reaction  has  already  begun.  Some 
of  the  most  distinguished  prelates  of  Italy,  France  and  Ger- 
many have  rebuked  the  most  offensive  spies  and  detractors 
of  their  brethren,  whom  this  sad  controversy  has  brought  to 
the  front.  Even  the  Pope  is  said  to  have  uttered  words  of 
caution.  The  public  press  of  the  world  is  boiling  with  in- 
dignation because  of  the  arrogant  dictation,  and  impertinent 
interference  with  their  affairs,  of  Monsignore  Benigni,  the 
prot^g^  of  Cardinal  Merry  del  Val,  and  his  "  Correspondenza 
Romana."  There  is  profound  dissatisfaction  with  the  present 
situation  of  the  Church  all  over  the  Christian  world,  and  on 


THE  PASSING  AND  THE  COMING   CHRISTIANITY         437 

the  part  of  some  of  the  most  distinguished  Cardinals  and 
prelates.  It  is  becoming  more  and  more  evident  that  the 
Pope  has  been  systematically  deceived. 

The  Pope,  nominally  the  sovereign  of  the  Church,  is  really 
now,  as  previous  Popes  have  usually  been,  in  the  hands  of  a 
bureaucracy  which  in  its  own  interests  constantly  misleads 
him  in  the  most  important  matters.  If  such  a  strong  self- 
centred  man  as  Kaiser  Wilhelm  of  Germany,  constantly  in 
public,  and  travelling  hither  and  thither  in  Germany  and 
other  countries,  has  been  misled  to  his  shame  by  unprin- 
cipled German  bureaucrats;  how  much  easier  has  it  been  for 
Roman  bureaucrats,  representing  to  so  great  an  extent  re- 
ligious Orders  rather  than  the  Episcopate,  and  thinking 
ever  chiefly  of  the  interests  of  their  Orders — how  much  easier 
for  such  men  to  mislead  such  a  Pope  as  Pius  X,  a  simple- 
minded,  devout  man,  with  the  best  intentions  for  moral  and 
religious  reform,  but  without  diplomatic  experience  and  in- 
expert in  the  detection  of  intrigues.  He  remains  shut  up 
in  the  Vatican,  carefully  guarded  from  all  improper  associa- 
tions, courted  by  adoring  pilgrims  and  obsequious  officials. 
He  does  not,  and  cannot,  know  any  more  of  the  outer  world 
than  is  strained  out  to  him  through  the  screens  of  a  multitude 
of  flatterers  and  self-seekers.  The  few  candid  and  straight- 
forward men  who  are  admitted  to  brief  interviews  are 
drowned,  as  it  were,  in  the  ocean  of  flatterers,  and  the  frank 
words  of  the  Pope  to  these  are  always  denied  or  explained 
away  in  the  oflScial  journals.  As  Sabatier  says,  *'One  need 
not  be  a  modernist  to  be  ashamed  of  this  Camorra  who  have 
practically  substituted  themselves  for  the  person  of  the  Pontiff, 
and  are  clamourously  forcing  their  will  upon  the  Church." 

Russia  and  Turkey,  and  even  Persia  and  China,  have  been 
compelled  by  the  modern  spirit  to  constitutionalise  their 
Governments  and  so  destroy  bureaucracy  and  despotism. 
It  is  really  impossible  for  Rome  to  resist  much  longer  this 
modem  spirit.  Rome  cannot  long  remain  the  only  absolute 
despotism  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  What  the  Roman  Curia 
is  now  battling  for  is  its  own  despotic  authority.    The  real 


438  CHURCH  UNITY 

secret  of  its  outcry  against  Modernism  is  the  dread  lest  Rome 
may  be  compelled  to  tread  the  footsteps  of  all  modern  States. 

The  Pope  has  undoubtedly  made  great  reforms,  such  as  the 
reform  of  public  worship  in  the  interests  of  reverence  and 
dignity;  the  reform  of  the  Curia  and  the  reorganisation  of  its 
congregations  to  increase  their  efficacy;  the  consolidation  of 
seminaries  for  the  priesthood,  and  the  enlargement  and  im- 
provement of  their  studies;  the  removal  of  the  American  Cath- 
olics from  a  missionary  jurisdiction  to  the  direct  Papal  jurisdic- 
tion; and  the  recodification  of  the  Canon  Law  which  is  about 
to  be  published.  Few  Popes  have  accomplished  so  much  in  a 
little  time.  And  yet  all  these  reforms  have  been  in  the  inter- 
est of  the  government  and  discipline  of  the  Church  and  in 
the  direction  of  absolutism  and  Mediaeval  conceptions  of  the 
Papacy.  The  Pope  has  not  carried  out  his  programme  of 
restoring  all  things  in  Christ.  He  has  been  diverted  to  the 
bureaucratic  interest  of  restoring  all  things  to  the  Papacy. 

This  Medisevalism  in  government  and  discipline  has  in- 
evitably carried  with  it  Mediaevalism  in  doctrines  of  Faith 
and  Morals,  and  so  the  conflict  with  Modernism  became  in- 
evitable. 

The  Modernists  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  are  Mod- 
ernists in  that  they  use  modern  methods  in  theology.  They 
do  not  differ  from  Medisevalists  in  the  doctrines  of  the  Church, 
but  only  in  the  form  and  mode  of  stating  them  and  vindicating 
them.  Mediaevalists  insist  that  the  scholastic  form  of  the 
doctrine  must  be  maintained  as  well  as  the  doctrine  itself. 
This  is  precisely  the  same  conflict  that  has  been  in  progress 
all  over  the  Protestant  world  between  Protestant  scholastics 
and  progressive  Protestants;  between  those  who  insist  that 
the  scholastic  formulas  of  the  seventeenth  century  should 
be  binding,  as  well  as  the  doctrines  contained  in  them.  The 
Protestant  scholastics  and  the  Roman  Curia  see  eye  to  eye 
in  this  fight.  Progressive  Protestants  and  Catholic  Modern- 
ists are  lined  up  in  the  same  ranks.  In  other  words,  it  is 
no  longer  a  battle  between  Protestants  and  Roman  Catholics, 
between  Lutheran  and  Reformed,  between  Arminian  and 


THE  PASSING  AND  THE  COMING  CHRISTIANITY        439 

Calvinist,  or  even  between  High  Church  and  Low  Church  in 
the  different  denominations.  The  battle  cries  of  the  seven- 
teenth century,  even  those  of  the  sixteenth  century,  are  no 
longer  those  that  excite  the  world.  Modernists,  Protestant 
and  Catholic  alike,  are  characterised  by  these  same  things. 

(1)  Modernists  use  the  method  of  Biblical  Criticism  and 
accept  its  results  without  hesitation.  This  method  destroys 
a  number  of  false  views  of  the  Bible;  it  affects  no  official 
doctrines  of  the  Bible  of  any  Church,  Roman,  Greek  or 
Protestant.  Scholastics,  Roman  and  Protestant,  agree  in 
the  new  dogma  of  the  inerrancy  of  Scripture  which  Modern- 
ists, Protestant  and  Roman  Catholic,  deny. 

(2)  Modernists  study  Church  History  by  the  methods  of 
Historical  Criticism.  This  destroys  a  multitude  of  untenable 
positions.  We  have  to  do  here,  not  with  the  Roman  Catholic 
doctrine  of  the  use  of  apostolic  tradition  alongside  of  the 
Bible  as  an  authority  in  religion,  but  with  traditional  history 
entirely  apart  from  apostolic  foundations.  Scholastics,  Ro- 
man and  Protestant  alike,  insist  on  traditional  history.  All 
Modernists  insist  upon  the  elimination  of  historic  fact  from 
the  traditional  theories  in  which  it  is  too  often  shrouded. 

(3)  Modernists  study  dogmas  by  the  use  of  Modern  Phil- 
osophy. Modern  Philosophy  discredits  the  scholastic  for- 
mulas in  which  both  Roman  and  Protestant  dogmas  are  en- 
cased; it  does  not  discredit  the  dogmas  themselves,  but 
endeavours  to  set  them  in  modern  formulas  that  can  be  un- 
derstood by  modern  men. 

(4)  Modernists  accept  without  hesitation  the  results  of 
Modern  Science.  They  usually  adopt  the  principle  of  evolu- 
tion, with  its  valuable  consequences.  Scholastics,  Protestant 
and  Roman,  tend  to  the  opinion,  baldly  expressed  by  the  late 
Dr.  Begg,  that  all  Theology  was  given  to  Adam  and  Eve  in 
Eden,  or  at  least  as  a  sacred  deposit  to  the  founders  of  Chris- 
tianity. All  Modernists  see  in  Church  History  a  develop- 
ment, or  evolution,  of  institution  and  doctrine. 

(5)  Modernists  advocate  a  reform  of  the  Church  and  its 
institutions  in  accordance  with  modern  methods  of  govern- 


440  CHURCH  UNITY 

ment  and  discipline,  and  with  scientific,  social  and  economic 
principles.  They  practise  the  active  rather  than  the  passive 
virtues,  and  urge  more  comprehensiveness  and  efficiency  in 
religious  work.  This  involves  practical  reform  all  along  the 
line.  As  the  Encyclical  says:  There  is  nothing  that  the 
Modernists  would  leave  untouched.  The  scholastics,  Prot- 
estant and  Roman,  are  hostile  to  reform. 

It  is  evident  that  Christianity  has,  in  this  conflict  between 
Medisevalists  and  Modernists,  entirely  new  lines  of  cleavage. 
The  old  lines  have  become  indistinct,  the  new  lines  are 
rapidly  obliterating  them.  What  is  that,  but  to  say  that  both 
Protestantism  and  Roman  Catholicism  are  moving  onward, 
impelled  by  irresistible  forces,  to  a  future  which  not  even  the 
Pope  can  determine  ?  Are  they  drifting  to  destruction  ?  Or 
are  they  guided  by  the  Master  pilot  to  a  safe  and  sure  haven  ? 
Modernism  is  the  embodiment  of  the  Zeit-Geist,  the  spirit  of 
our  age,  that  our  Lord  is  using  to  mediate  between  the  past 
and  the  future  of  his  kingdom. 

Modernists  differ  greatly  among  themselves,  whether  Ro- 
man Catholic  or  Protestant.  There  are  radical  Modernists 
who  are  impatient  of  the  slow  processes  of  scholarship  and 
jump  at  conclusions.  In  their  enthusiasm  for  the  new,  they 
become  hostile  to  the  old;  and  so  they  become  revolutionary 
in  their  notions.  Such  Modernists  discredit  the  movement. 
No  one  should  blame  the  Pope  for  smiting  them;  no  one 
should  blame  Protestant  religious  organisations  for  rejecting 
them.  But,  in  fact,  the  chief  Roman  Catholic  Modernists, 
as  the  chief  Protestant  Modernists,  are  not  such  radicals. 

Ecclesiastics  have  no  fear  of  radicals,  for  they  know  that 
these  are  madly  rushing  to  their  own  destruction;  but  they 
have  an  instinctive  hatred  of  reform  of  any  kind,  and  therefore 
conservative  reformers  are  their  terror,  because  they  are  con- 
scious of  the  need  of  such  reforms  and  know  quite  well  that 
they  can  only  postpone  them.  The  Modernists,  who  have 
been  smitten  by  the  Roman  Catholic  and  Protestant  Churches 
alike,  are  for  the  most  part,  not  radicals,  but  conservatives, 
differing  from  their  adversaries  more  in  methods  and  struc- 


THE  PASSING  AND  THE  COMING  CHRISTIANITY        441 

tiiral  principles  than  in  substance  and  ideals — more  as  regards 
current  traditional  opinion,  than  with  reference  to  the  official 
doctrines  and  institutions  of  the  bodies  to  which  they  belong. 

The  attack  of  the  ecclesiastics  upon  conservative  Modern- 
ists, in  every  case,  has  strengthened  the  hands  of  the  radicals 
and  stayed  the  hands  of  those  scholars  who  were  mediating 
the  reconciliation  of  the  Church  with  the  modern  world,  and 
the  advance  of  the  Church  to  a  higher  and  better  future,  by 
the  use  of  the  more  comprehensive  and  efficient  methods 
of  modern  thought  and  modern  life. 

The  battle  that  is  raging  all  over  the  world  is  between 
Medisevalism  and  Modernism.  Even  the  Protestant  Re- 
actionaries are  Medisevalists  in  part,  because  it  is  the  medi- 
aeval scholastic  methods  for  which  they  battle.  It  is  the  same 
battle  over  again  which  mediaeval  men  had  to  fight  against 
the  exaggerated  claims  for  Antiquity;  which  each  generation 
in  a  measure  has  to  fight  against  the  preceding  generation 
which  would  hold  it  in  bondage.  The  Middle  Age  of  the 
world  had  its  work  to  do,  and  in  doing  it  would  not  be  tram- 
melled by  the  methods  of  Antiquity.  Medisevalism  con- 
quered in  its  day,  and  has  dominated  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  and  in  a  measure  Protestantism  ever  since.  So  the 
Modern  Age  of  the  world  has  its  task,  and  it  will  perform  it 
without  being  bound  by  the  methods  of  the  Medisevalists; 
a  task  vastly  higher  and  greater  than  that  of  any  previous 
time  in  the  world's  history;  a  task  in  which  the  entire  world 
is  involved,  and  the  entire  universe  must  be  held  in  view,  and 
the  entire  history  of  the  earth  and  man  and  the  universe  comes 
into  play.  Thomas  Aquinas,  with  all  his  wondrous  ability, 
his  scholarly  grasp  of  material  and  his  constructive  genius, 
was  in  many  respects  a  babe  to  modern  scholarship,  whose 
horizon  of  knowledge  is  vastly  more  extended,  whose  material 
is  enormously  greater,  and  whose  constructive  system  must  be 
immensely  higher,  deeper,  broader  and  wonderfully  complex. 

The  tasks  set  before  the  modem  world  are  not  merely  those 
of  human  enterprise  and  invention,  they  have  been  appointed 
by  the  Sovereign  of  the  whole  earth.    The  problems  set  before 


442  CHURCH  UNITY 

the  Church  of  Christ  in  our  day  are  problems  which  Jesus 
Christ  our  King  has  given  us  to  solve.  The  divine  Spirit  is 
in  the  Church  of  to-day  just  as  truly  as  He  was  in  the  ancient 
and  mediaeval  Church,  and  He  is  guiding  us  in  all  our  move- 
ments toward  the  ideal,  predetermined  from  all  eternity  in  the 
divine  plan  and  purpose.  Uzzah  once  more  thinks  he  can 
stay  the  ark  of  God  from  falling.  Thomas  once  more  doubts 
the  presence  of  his  Lord.  The  ark  of  God  will  protect  itself 
in  this  modern  age  just  as  surely  as  in  the  ancient  and  Middle 
Ages.  Thomas  will  eventually  have  to  acknowledge  his 
Lord  in  modem,  no  less  than  in  ancient  and  mediseval  History. 
Modernism  is  not  the  antithesis  of  Medisevalism.  It  is  its 
normal  resultant.  The  Encyclical  makes  them  antithetical. 
I  shall  not  deny  that  there  are  some  who  call  themselves 
Modernists  who  do  the  same;  but  these  men  are  not  true 
Modernists.  True  Modernists  are  mediating  Modernists 
Modernism  mediates  the  transition  of  the  Middle  Age  of  the 
world  into  the  Future  Age,  just  as  the  Middle  Age  mediated 
the  transition  of  the  Ancient  into  the  Modern.  All  History  is 
one,  because  it  is  governed  by  the  master  mind  that  created 
and  governs  the  universe.  All  History  advances  steadily  and 
surely  toward  its  goal,  as  the  militant  Church  becomes  more 
and  more  triumphant.  The  chief  Captain  of  our  Salvation 
assures  the  modern  world  of  an  eventual  victory.  We  may 
battle,  and  suffer,  and  die  in  confidence  that  the  goal  will  be 
surely  reached.  Neither  the  reactionaries  nor  the  revolution- 
aries will  prevail.  The  Church  of  God  moves  onward  with 
stately  and  invincible  step — Ohne  Hasty  ohne  Rust — into  our 
future  as  into  every  preceding  future,  with  the  Lord's  prayer, 
**Thy  Kingdom  Come"  in  its  heart. 

III.    THE  COMING  CATHOLICISM 

What  is  the  Coming  Catholicism  ?  No  one  can  tell  in  de- 
tail; but  it  is  not  difficult  to  determine  in  outline  what  the 
kingdom  of  God  will  eventually  become,  for  we  know  in  a 
measure  at  least  the  mind  of  our  Lord,  which  is  as  certain  of 


THE  PASSING  AND  THE  COMING   CHRISTIANITY         443 

realisation  as  the  rising  of  the  sun.  We  also  know  the  great 
historic  movements  of  the  Church  for  nineteen  centuries,  and 
the  forces  which  are  now  active  in  Christianity.  These 
movements  and  forces,  guided  by  the  divine  Spirit,  will  most 
certainly  have  resultants  which  we  may  discern  with  con- 
fidence. 

(1)  The  Coming  Catholicism  will  be  a  Church  at  peace 
with  itself .  Jesus  said  in  his  farewell  discourse :  "The  Para- 
clete, the  Holy  Spirit,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  My  name, 
He  will  teach  you  all  things,  and  bring  to  remembrance  all 
that  I  said  unto  you.  Peace  I  leave  unto  you.  My  Peace  I  give 
unto  you;  not  as  the  world  giveth  give  I  unto  you.  Let  not 
your  heart  be  troubled,  neither  let  it  be  fearful."  *  A  Church, 
guided  by  the  divine  Spirit,  sins  against  the  Master  when  it 
is  fearful  or  troubled,  and  not  at  peace  with  itself.  The  guilt 
of  this  sin  is  the  fundamental  trouble  with  the  Christian 
Church  to-day.  The  peace  of  the  Church  should  flow  on  as 
a  river  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Instead  of 
this,  the  Church  of  Christ  has  been  too  often  "  like  the  troubled 
sea;  for  it  cannot  rest,  and  its  waters  cast  up  mire  and  dirt. 
There  is  no  peace,  saith  my  God,  to  the  wicked."  ^ 

Why  should  the  Christian  Church  be  so  fearful  of  errors  in 
theology,  so  troubled  with  schisms,  so  much  at  war  with  itself 
as  to  questions  of  government,  discipline  and  worship  ?  The 
Truth  is  mighty  and  it  will  prevail.  Facts  are  invincible. 
The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  inerrant  guide  given  us  by  our  Saviour. 
Let  truth  and  fact  do  their  battle  against  error  and  theorising. 
Above  all,  have  confidence  in  the  presence,  the  power  and  the 
guidance  of  the  divine  Spirit.  The  great  fault  of  the  Church 
of  our  day  is  that,  while  it  holds  to  the  doctrine  of  the  divine 
Spirit,  it  does  not  act  as  if  the  divine  Spirit  was  really  present 
and  guiding  as  Jesus  promised.  The  Coming  Catholicism 
will  be  a  Catholicism  which  is  conscious  of  the  divine  Spirit 
in  her  midst,  which  will  act  under  His  impulse  and  guidance, 
and  which  will  be  without  fear  or  trouble,  at  peace  with 
herself. 

»  John  xiv.  26-27.  » Isaiah  Ivii.  20-21. 


444  CHURCH  UNITY 

(2)  The  Coming  Catholicism  will  be  a  reunited  Church. 
The  Church  of  Christ  has  never,  in  fact,  altogether  lost  its  unity. 
As  St.  Paul  tells  us:  "There  is  one  body  and  one  Spirit,  even 
as  also  ye  were  called  in  one  hope  of  your  calling;  one  Lord, 
one  Faith,  one  Baptism,  one  Gk>d  and  Father  of  all,  who  is 
over  all  and  through  all  and  in  all."  ^  The  Church  of  Christ 
is  divided  as  a  household  is  divided  with  quarrelsome  chil- 
dren ;  or  as  a  nation  is  divided  by  warring  factions.  We  have 
been  so  much  occupied  by  our  divisions  that  we  have  too 
often  forgotten  that  we  belong  to  the  one  household  of  God, 
the  one  kingdom  of  Christ.  We  have  exaggerated  the  discord 
and  depreciated  the  concord;  we  have  misunderstood  and 
misrepresented  our  brethren. 

Several  years  go,  an  eminent  Waldensian  in  Rome  said  to 
me  that  there  was  not  a  single  Roman  Catholic  scholar  who 
understood  the  Waldensian  position.  I  thought  at  the  time 
that  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  a  Protestant  scholar  who 
understood  altogether  the  Roman  Catholic  position.  The 
Roman  Catholics  and  the  Protestants  live  in  a  different  literary 
world,  in  a  different  religious  atmosphere;  and  it  is  necessary 
for  a  Protestant  to  enter  the  Roman  Catholic  world,  live  in 
the  Roman  Catholic  atmosphere,  and  so  come  into  loving 
communion  with  his  Roman  Catholic  brethren,  in  order  to 
understand  them.  The  Modernists,  both  Roman  Catholic 
and  Protestant,  have  in  some  measure  this  irenic  spirit. 
They  see  that  the  consensus  of  the  Church  is  vastly  more  im- 
portant than  the  dissensus;  that  the  consensus  is  the  normal 
and  legitimate  inheritance  of  Christianity,  but  that  the  dis- 
sensus is,  to  a  great  extent,  the  crude,  undigested  and  un- 
wholesome encumbrance  of  Christianity  which  must  either 
be  cast  off  or  revised  or  reformed.  We  may  be  certain  that 
this  dissensus  will  continue  to  decrease  in  importance,  that 
the  misunderstandings  and  misinterpretations  will  gradually 
pass  away. 

As  Harnack  recently  said:  *' Scholars  in  both  Churches  are 
engaged  with  marked  independence  in  the  solution  of  par- 
'  Eph.  iv.  4-6. 


THE  PASSING   AND  THE  COMING   CHRISTIANITY         445 

ticular  historical  problems,  and  the  value  of  their  researches  is 
recognised  in  both  camps."  A  prominent  Roman  Catholic 
scholar,  Monsignor  Duchesne,  one  of  the  greatest  living 
Church  historians,  recently  published  a  Church  History  of 
the  first  three  centuries,  calmly  discussing  all  disputed  ques- 
tions, such  as  the  formation  of  the  Creeds,  the  Christological 
and  Trinitarian  controversies,  the  origin  of  the  Episcopate 
and  the  Roman  Primacy,  and  the  history  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment Canon;  and,  "with  the  exception  of  a  few  details," 
as  Harnack  says:  Nothing  in  this  work  can  call  forth  the 
criticism  of  Protestant  savants. 

Harnack  rightly  urges  upon  conscientious  men  in  both 
Churches  the  following  admirable  principles:  (a)  The  con- 
fessional, or  credal  differences  of  the  two  Churches,  must  be 
entirely  removed  from  the  political  sphere.  (6)  Each  party 
must  try  to  be  perfectly  just  to  the  other,  (c)  All  useless 
controversies  must  be  avoided  and  a  fair  and  honest  method 
of  controversy  instituted,  (d)  Each  Church  must  earnestly 
try  to  appreciate  and  properly  understand  the  religious  and 
spiritual  life  of  the  other,  (e)  A  higher  unity,  and  the  attain- 
ment of  a  truth  which  now  lies  beyond  the  grasp  of  both 
Churches,  must  be  held  up  as  the  final  ideal.  The  faithful 
application  of  these  principles  in  Christian  brotherhood  will 
eventually  accomplish  the  Reunion  of  Christendom. 

(3)  The  Coming  Catholicism  will  be  Catholic.  The  prin- 
ciples of  Catholic  Unity  clearly  manifest  in  the  second  Chris- 
tian century  are  a  normal  and  inevitable  development  of 
Apostolic  Christianity.  They  have  always  been  maintained 
by  the  Church,  and  will  be  even  more  dominant  in  the  future 
than  in  the  present.  The  great  Catholic  principles,  as  I  have 
shown,*  embrace  these  three  things:  (a)  A  consciousness  of 
geographical  unity  in  one  Church  spread  throughout  the 
world ;  (b)  Historical  unity  by  succession  with  the  apostles — 
this  involves  that  nothing  shall  be  regarded  as  Catholic  that 
cannot  be  derived  as  a  normal  development  of  the  Apostolic 
Church;  (c)  Vital  or  mystic  unity  with  Christ — this  involves 
» See  pp.  49  /. 


446  CHURCH   UNITY 

that  Christian  life  and  worship,  as  instituted  by  the  historic 
Christ,  and  maintained  by  union  with  the  reigning  Christ, 
shall  be  conserved  as  making  the  Church  truly  holy;  in  other 
words,  the  Catholic  Church  must  be  holy  and  apostolic,  and 
so,  truly  Catholic. 

Now,  all  the  great  historic  Churches  of  Protestantism,  as 
well  as  the  Roman,  Greek  and  Oriental  Churches,  hold  to 
these  Catholic  principles  in  theory;  but  in  fact  they  all,  with- 
out exception,  sin  against  them  in  practices,  which  are  not 
in  accord  with  these  Catholic  principles.  They  err  by  excess 
and  by  defect.  The  Church  of  the  future  will  recede  from 
these  excesses,  and  overcome  these  defects,  and  so  become 
more  truly  Catholic.  In  British  Christianity,  the  Anglicans 
exaggerate  apostolicity;  the  Puritans,  sanctity;  the  Roman 
Catholics,  geographical  unity  in  the  Holy  See.  What  is  ex- 
cess in  the  one  is  defect  in  the  others. 

The  three  features  of  Catholic  Unity  are  involved  in  the 
saying  of  Vincent  of  Lerins:  ''Quod  ubique,  quod  semper, 
qvod  ah  omnibus  creditum  est''  ^  This  principle  is  universally 
recognised  as  valid ;  but  in  its  application  there  is  again  excess 
on  the  one  side  and  defect  on  the  other.  The  Church  ali 
through  its  history  has  been  impatient  of  results.  It  was  de- 
termined to  decide  by  Councils  and  Synods  and  Popes,  rather 
than  wait  for  the  decision  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  funda* 
mental  Catholic  principle  is  that  the  Holy  Spirit  will  lead  into 
all  the  truth;  and  that  He  will  lead  the  universal  Church  into 
the  possession  of  all  the  truth.  The  Church  should  always 
have  waited  until  the  divine  Spirit  had  brought  about  the 
consensus,  and  not  have  forced  the  issue  prematurely  at  the 
cost  of  discord,  heresy  and  schism. 

St.  Augustine  gave  another  phrase  which  has  been  of  great 
significance  here:  " Securus  judical  orbis  terrarum."^  It  was 
this  phrase,  as  quoted  by  Wiseman — "Therefore  the  entire 
world  judges  with  security  that  they  are  not  just  who  separate 
themselves  from  the  entire  world  " — which  made  Newman  a 
Roman  Catholic.  This  principle  is  again  correct,  but  the  use 
»  See  p.  69.  'See  p.  68. 


THE   PASSING   AND  THE   COMING   CHRISTIANITY         447 

made  of  it  is  often  erroneous.  It  is  quite  true  that  the  uni- 
versal Church  judges  under  the  guidance  of  the  divine  Spirit, 
and  in  that  judgment  is  at  peace  with  itself,  in  unity  with  the 
divine  Lord  and  the  entire  brotherhood;  but  it  is  not  true 
that  the  individual  Christian  is  bound  to  submit  to  the  au- 
thority of  the  majority  vote  of  a  Christian  Council,  or  of  a 
Pope,  unrecognised  by  the  majority  of  Christians  throughout 
the  world. 

The  ecclesiastical  authorities  are  always  impatient  for  the 
decision,  and  are  not  content  to  wait  until  the  divine  Spirit 
has  brought  the  world-wide  Church  to  a  knowledge  of  the 
truth  and  a  conscientious  acceptance  of  it;  The  ecclesiastics 
force  the  decision,  and  offend  the  consciences  of  a  multitude 
of  Christians  as  truly  Christian  as  themselves.  The  Chris- 
tian conscience  rebels  against  a  dogma  that  is  forced  upon  it 
by  external  authority,  without  sufficient  evidence  to  convince 
the  intelligence.  These  ecclesiastics  claim  to  themselves  the 
possession  of  the  divine  Spirit,  and  deny  it  to  brethren  of 
equal  rank,  ability  and  piety  with  themselves.  In  such  cases, 
the  universal  Church  does  not  decide;  and  it  certainly  does 
not  decide  with  security,  in  the  possession  of  the  Lord's  peace 
and  unity,  but  in  strife  and  divisions  entirely  contrary  to  the 
principle  of  Catholic  Unity.  The  time  is  coming  when  the 
true  Catholic  principle  will  reassert  itself,  when  it  will  be 
truly  and  calmly  applied.  The  concord,  the  consensus,  of 
Christendom  will  be  recognised  universally  as  the  judgment 
of  the  divine  Spirit,  and  the  dissensus  as  an  evidence  that  the 
divine  Spirit  has  not  yet  given  His  decision  through  the  uni- 
versal Church. 

4.  The  Coming  Catholicism  will  be  orthodox.  The  divine 
Spirit,  though  grieved,  never  abandons  the  Christian  Church. 
In  the  midst  of  all  the  strife  and  discord,  the  heresies  and 
schisms,  he  still  continues  His  gracious  guidance.  The  de- 
cisions of  the  ancient  Councils  give  the  standard  of  Christian 
orthodoxy  from  which  the  Church  will  never  depart.  These 
decisions  were  premature  and,  as  the  history  of  the  Church 
shows,  in  every  case  ineffective.     The  doctrines  did  not  win 


448  CHURCH  UNITY 

acceptance  because  of  these  decisions,  but  in  spite  of  them, 
by  the  slow  process  of  reflection  and  discussion  in  the  Chris- 
tian world.'  The  Nicene  faith  hung  in  the  balance  for  sev- 
eral generations,  and  only  gradually,  in  spite  of  conciliar 
action,  won  the  consensus  of  the  Christian  world.  This 
ought  to  have  taught  the  Christian  Church  a  wholesome 
lesson,  but  it  did  not.  The  way  of  ecclesiastical  authority 
has  ever  been  the  way  the  Church  has  preferred,  at  the  cost  of 
numberless  heresies  and  schisms.  The  venerable  proverb, 
"More  haste,  less  speed,"  has  been  illustrated  nowhere  else 
more  truly  than  in  the  history  of  Christian  Councils. 

At  the  same  time,  the  wrath  of  man  was  overruled  by 
God  to  his  praise,  and  the  decisions  of  the  Christian  Councils 
did  eventually  gain  the  consensus  of  the  Church  and  will 
never  be  overruled.  It  is  true  that  modern  men  take  excep- 
tion to  the  formulas  in  which  the  doctrines  are  expressed, 
and  it  is  characteristic  of  Modernists  that  they  are  striving 
to  set  these  doctrines  in  modern  forms  and  expressions  which 
will  make  them  no  longer  abstractions,  but  realities  to  the 
modern  world.  This  is  one  of  the  phases  of  the  battle  that 
is  now  raging  between  Modernists  and  Mediaevalists.  The 
Medisevalists  maintain  that  the  form  of  the  doctrine  is  as 
necessary  as  its  substance;  that  we  must  accept  the  philo- 
sophical formula  as  well  as  the  Christian  material.  But 
Modernists  rightly  claim  that  the  modern  age  of  the  world 
has  its  rights,  no  less  than  the  mediaeval  and  the  ancient, 
that  it  is  impossible  for  moderns  to  think,  feel  and  act  in  the 
traditional  moulds  of  former  ages  which  are  unfamiliar  to 
modern  experience.  The  letter  of  these  doctrines  is  dead, 
the  living  substance  is  wrapped  in  grave  clothes.  That 
these  doctrines  may  live  for  us,  these  grave  bands  must  be 
stripped  off.  Lazarus  must  come  forth  into  the  realities  of 
the  modern  world.  This  is  not  to  destroy  the  doctrines,  it 
is  rather  to  make  them  live  again.  It  is  not  to  bury  them, 
but  to  raise  them  from  the  dead.  It  is  not  to  substitute  error 
and  heresy  for  the  doctrinal  judgments  of  Christianity.     It 

»See  p.  234. 


THE  PASSING   AND  THE  COMING   CHRISTIANITY         449 

is  to  banish  all  error  and  heresy,  due  chiefly  to  misconceptions 
and  misstatements  of  the  theologians,  by  letting  the  pure,  un- 
adulterated, undefiled  truth  shine  forth  from  the  new  cande- 
labra upon  which  the  ancient  lamps  of  orthodoxy  are  now 
being  placed. 

(5)  We  might  go  down  through  the  long  highway  of  Chris- 
tian History,  and  show  that  whatever  has  won  the  consensus 
of  the  Christian  Church  will  always  remain  in  the  Christian 
Church,  as  a  final  judgment  of  the  divine  Spirit  wrought  out 
in  the  Christian  experience  of  the  universal  Church;  but  I 
must  hasten  to  a  conclusion.  Which  of  the  two  great  Chris- 
tian bodies,  Protestant  or  Roman  Catholic,  is  to  prevail  in 
the  future  Catholicism?  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say:  Neither. 
Both  have  their  contributions  to  make  to  the  Coming  Cathol- 
icism. Whatever  is  genuine  in  Protestantism  will  pass  over 
into  the  Coming  Catholicism;  whatever  is  not  genuine  will 
pass  away.  What  is  true  and  right  in  Roman  Catholicism 
will  abide;  what  is  not  altogether  true  and  right  will  be 
thrown  aside.  Protestantism  and  Roman  Catholicism  will 
eventually  rise  above  all  the  mists  of  prejudice,  and  the  walls 
and  citadels  of  ancient  conflicts  into  the  clear,  bright  heaven 
of  eternal  realities,  and  continue  in  a  glorious  brotherhood. 
Each,  in  its  way,  went  through  a  crisis  of  reformation  which 
has  not  yet  reached  its  goal.  Each,  in  its  own  way,  is  ad- 
vancing toward  a  divinely  appointed  destination.  Each  has 
an  important  contribution  to  make  to  the  Coming  Catholicism, 
in  which  not  only  Protestant  and  Roman  Catholic,  but  also 
Greek  and  Syrian,  Armenian  and  Copt — ^yes,  the  Jew,  the 
Mohammedan,  and  even  India,  China  and  Japan — will 
share;  for  in  a  world-wide  religion,  embracing  all  the  races  of 
mankind,  every  nation  and  every  race  will  have  something  to 
say  and  something  to  do. 

What,  then,  will  be  the  great  distinguishing  principle  of 
Coming  Catholicism  ?  It  is  the  principle  of  sanctification  by 
love.  It  must  be  evident  to  all,  that  we  have  come  into  an 
ethical  age,  a  sociological  age;  an  age  which  resents  mere 
dogma,  and  insists  upon  the  realities  of  life;  which  cannot  be 


450  CHURCH  UNITY 

satisfied  with  faith  only,  but  demands  good  works;  an  age  for 
holy  men  and  women ;  an  age  whose  impulse  can  be  no  other 
than  holy,  Chrisdike,  self-sacrificing  love. 

This  age  is  not  worse  than  others.  It  is  better.  The 
Church  has  always  from  the  beginning  been  growing  better. 
Christ,  the  Head  of  the  Church, 

also  loved  the  Church  and  gave  himself  up  for  it,  that  he  might  sanctify 
it,  having  cleansed  it  by  the  washing  of  water  with  the  word,  that  he 
might  present  the  Church  to  himself  a  glorious  Church,  not  having  spot 
or  wrinkle  or  any  such  thing:  but  that  it  should  be  holy  and  without 
blemish.    (Eph.  v.  25-27.) 

We  cannot  doubt  that  our  Lord  has  been,  and  is  now,  ful- 
filling His  ideal.  All  History  attests  it.  Christian  experience 
manifests  it,  the  ambition  of  multitudes  of  Christians  through- 
out the  world  shows  that,  though  the  ideal  has  not  yet  been 
entirely  accomplished,  the  advance  toward  it  is  more  vigor- 
ous, more  wide-spread,  more  determined  and  more  effectual 
than  ever  before.  Men  are  more  and  more  convinced  that 
nothing  else  but  holy.  Christlike  love  will  solve  the  problems 
of  the  present  age,  and  make  the  future  what  all  men  of  good- 
will earnestly  hope  for.  It  alone  will  reconcile  Christian  to 
Christian,  and  bring  about  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  Church. 
It  alone  will  give  Christian  thinkers  and  workers  that  liberty 
of  conscience  and  opinion  and  practice  which  is  indispensable 
to  solve  the  hard  problems  inherited  from  the  past,  and  those 
forced  upon  us  by  new  conditions  and  circumstances  in  the 
present.  It  alone  will  reconcile  Jew  and  Christian,  for  this 
is  the  ethical  principle  which  binds  Old  Testament  and  New 
in  indissoluble  union :  it  is  the  everlasting  Shema  of  Jew  and 
Christian  alike.  It  alone  will  reconcile  labour  and  capital, 
and  solve  the  economic  and  industrial  difficulties,  with  which 
the  success  of  Christianity  in  our  day  is  so  inextricably  in- 
volved. It  alone  will  persuade  the  heathen  world  that  Chris- 
tianity is  something  more  than  the  imposition  of  Western 
manners  and  customs,  and  an  alien  civilization,  upon  an  un- 
willing Orient.     It  alone  will  knit  together  all  nations  and 


THE   PASSING   AND  THE  COMING   CHRISTIANITY         451 

races  in  a  Coming  Catholicism  which  shall  realise  the  highest 
ideals  of  Christianity. 

When  once  the  great  fundamental  Catholic  principle  of 
Holy  Love  has  become  the  material  principle  of  entire  Chris- 
tianity, it  will  fuse  all  differences,  and,  like  a  magnet,  draw 
all  into  organic  unity  about  that  centre  where  Love  itself 
most  truly  reigns.  Nothing  in  this  world  can  stand  against 
such  a  Catholic  Church.  She  will  speedily  draw  all  man- 
kind into  the  kingdom  of  our  God  and  Saviour. 


INDEX 


Abaddon,  342. 

Abbot,  Archbishop,  95,  130,  135. 

Absolution,  251  /. 

Accidents,  eucharistic,  267/.,  286/. 

Acts  of  uniformity,   141,   367  /., 

374/. 
Adiaphoristic  controversy,  390. 
Advent,    second,   335,   340,   345, 

363-4. 
Aerius,  84. 
Agnosticism,  397. 
Alasco,  91. 

Alexander  of  Hales,  130. 
Altar-table,  276. 
Ambrose,  134. 

Anabaptists,  170,  340,  345,  428. 
Andrews,  Bishop,  132,  135. 
Anencletus,  108. 
Anglo  Cathohcs,  80,  367  /.,  375  /., 

379/. 
Anicetus,  59. 

Apology  of  Augsburg,  139. 
Apostle,  47. 
Apostohcity,  50  /. 
Aquinas,  138,  248,  402,  403,  441. 
Arianism,  301. 
Aristotle,  402  /. 
Arius,  301,  316. 
Armachanus,  130. 
Arminianism,    307,    320/.,     335, 

341  /.,  345,  349. 
Articles,  Chicago  Lambeth,  6,  23, 

73  /.,  182,  189  /.,  191,  246,  305, 

388/.,   391.     See  also   Quadri- 
lateral. 
Articles  of  Religion,  66,  184,  238, 

253,  269,  272,  308,  312,  384-5. 
Assumption  of  Virgin,  394. 
Attrition,  251. 
Augustine,  68,  233,  237,  324,  329, 

355,  358,  446. 
Authority  in  Religion,  223  /.,  321, 

337. 
Autographs,  329. 


Bancroft,  Archbishop,  132,  134, 
135   150  375 

Baptism,  247/.,  413;  of  desire,  263, 
341;  of  infants,  334. 

Baptists,  345. 

Barlow,  Bishop,  150. 

Baur,  F.  C,  290. 

Baxter,  91,  92,  97,  98,  248,  328, 
383 

Bellarmin,  400. 

Beza,  131. 

Bible,  means  of  grace,  332  /.  See 
also  Scripture. 

BiUot,  138,  403. 

Bishops,  diocesan,  88,  94;  mon- 
archical, 105;  parochial,  84,  87, 
94. 

Body  of  Christ,  44,  280  /.,  289. 

Bossuet,  400. 

Brown,  Francis,  328,  361. 

Browning,  14. 

Bruce,  A.  B.,  328. 

Bucer,  12,  91,  128,  150,  269. 

Bugenhagen,  95. 

Bunyan,  92. 

Bureaucracy,  Roman,  219,  437. 

Burnet    141. 

Burton,  Henry,  308. 

Butler,  Bishop,  320,  341-2. 


Csprularius,  414. 

Calamy,  97. 

Calixtus,  12. 

Calling,  effectual,  349,  355. 

Call  to  the  Ministry,  172. 

Calvin,  91,  131,  139,  265,  269,  271, 

297,  328,  355,  358,  428. 
Calvinism,  321. 
Camarilla,  393,  407. 
Camorra,  437. 
Canon    of    the     Mass,    Anglican, 

276-7;  Greek,  276;  Roman,  262. 
Canon  of  Scripture,  54,  58. 


453 


454 


INDEX 


Canons  of  Dort,  307. 

Capernaitical,  283. 

Cardinals,  215,  423. 

Cartwright,  11,  91,  92,  129. 

Cassander,  241,  280,  421. 

Catechism,  Roman,  282,  288; 
Westminster,  351. 

Catholic,  name,  46  /.;  reaction, 
69/. 

Catholicism,  coming,  442  /. 

Catholicity,  4  /.,  445  /.;  and  apos- 
tolicity,  50  /. ;  and  Roman,  57  /. ; 
ethical  principle,  61  /;  geograph- 
ical, 66  /. ;  and  orthodoxy,  55  /. ; 
religious  principle,  64  /. 

Ceremonies  of  Worship,  366  /. 

Character,  episcopal,  149  /.,  158  /; 
ministerial,  153  /. 

Cheyne,  328. 

Chrism,  254. 

Christ,  363  /.;  king,  358;  mediator, 
293;  preaching  to  spirits  in 
prison,  344,  360;  pre-existent 
292;  priest,  275,  280,  358 
prophet,  357  /. ;  sacrifice,  281 
virgin  birth,  364. 

Christophanies,  126,  283,  295. 

Church,  Advance  of,  316/.;  Bib- 
lical doctrine  of,  23/.;  consis- 
torial,  172;  and  creed,  299/.; 
denominational,  172,  178/.;  of 
Denmark,  95;  of  England,  366  /. ; 
episcopal,  172;  national,  172, 
177/.,  207;  oecumenical,  172; 
presbyterial,  172;  and  State, 
74/.,  217;  of  Sweden,  95;  the 
term,  24  /. 

City  of  God,  39. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  52. 

Clement  of  Rome,  59,  62-3,  108. 

College  of  presbytiers,  84, 106, 108, 
144. 

Collier,  134. 

Commission,  Apostolic,  102  /., 
124/.,  299;  Biblical,  211,  393; 
Royal,  374  /.,  378,  385  /. 

Communion  meal,  276. 

Communion  with  God,  428. 

Comprehensiveness,  17  /. 

Conception,  immaculate,  231,  235, 
403. 

Concordat,  216  /. 

Conference,  Lambeth,  136,  165; 
at  Poissy,  297. 


Confession,  act  of,  251  /.;  of  Augs- 
burg, 241,  260,  261,  308;  Galli- 
can,  270,  325;  Westminster,  11, 
66  /.,  184,  186,  191,  225,  226, 
308,  310,  311,  317,  328,  335, 
347,  350. 

Confirmation,  247  /.,  254  /. 

Congregations,  Roman,  401,  422  /. 

Congregationalists,  78. 

Conscience,  223  /.,  430. 

Consensus,  5  /.,  54,  243. 

Consistory,  170. 

Constitution  of  the  Apostles,  300. 

Consubstantiation,  268  /. 

Contrition,  251. 

Convention,  diocesan,  98;  general, 
170. 

Conversion,  eucharistic,  268  /. 

Council,  of  Basle,  415,  417;  of 
Chalcedon,  302  /. ;  of  Constance, 
415,  417;  of  Constantinople,  302; 
of  the  Dedication,  302;  of  Flor- 
ence, 415;  of  Jerusalem,  240;  of 
the  Lateran,  267;  of  Nice,  55-6, 
234,  301/.;  oecumenical,  55  /., 
167,  415;  of  Pisa,  417;  of  Toledo, 
303;  of  Trent,  184, 187, 191, 207, 
213,  234,  247,  249-50,  273/., 
278-9,  282,  286,  306-7,  415, 
432;  of  Vatican,  214,  228  /., 
406,  416. 

Counsels  of  perfection,  61,  429. 

Counter  reformation,  249. 

Cranmer,  117,  150,  420. 

Creed,  Apostles',  58,  60, 187,  299/., 
305,  312,  318-9;  Athanasian, 
303;  Constantinopolitan,  302  /.; 
of  Jerusalem,  302;  Lucian,  302; 
Nicene,  56,  187,  241,  301  /.,  318- 
19;  Roman,  60,  300,  303. 

Creeds,  10,  299/.;  interpretation 
of,  188. 

Crisis,  American,  315  /.;  Anglican, 
366/. 

Criticism,  Biblical,  242,  309;  High- 
er, 326/;  Historical,  242,  330; 
Textual,,  325. 

Crypto  Cathohcism,  368  /.,  376. 

Cunningham,  141. 

Curia,  Roman,  393  /.,  398  /.,  406  /., 
416,423/.,  437/. 

Curio,  345. 

Cyprian,  414. 

C^^l  of  Jerusalem,  302. 


INDEX 


455 


Davidson,  A.  B.,  328. 

Deacons,  83. 

Delitzsch,  Fr.,  39,  328. 

De  Wette,  28. 

Didache,  61,  64. 

Didascalia,  299. 

Diocese,  171. 

Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  414. 

Dionysius  of  Corinth,  62. 

Directory,  Westminster,  90,  99. 

Discipline,  Church,  374  /.;  411. 

DisestabHshment,  386. 

Dissensus,  6  /. 

Divorce,  192,  211-12. 

Donatists,  58,  68. 

Dorner,  I.  A.,  95,  328,  331,  332, 

338,  353. 
Driver,  328,  361. 
Duchesne,  316,  445. 
Dury,  John,  131. 

Eating,  eucharistic,  295  /. 

Ecclesia,  24  /. 

Ecstasy,  295  /. 

Education,  public,  75,  211-12. 

Edwards,  Jonathan,  318. 

Elders,  ruling,  83. 

Election  of  grace,  336. 

Encyclical  against  Modernism,  39/. 

Ephraim  Syrus,  350. 

Episcopate,  Historic,  73  /. ;  as  a 
term  of  union,  79  /. ;  advantages 
of,  93  /.;  grounds  of  opposition 
to,  82  /.;  restoration  of,  159. 

Erasmus,  420. 

Erastianism,  74/. 

Eschatology,  334,  357  /. 

Essentials  of  Christianity,  4. 

Estcourt,  123,  155. 

Eternal,  Biblical  meaning,  361. 

Ethics,  Christian,  355,  361. 

Eucharist,  247  /. ;  expiation  in, 
272;  institution  of,  279;  rehgious 
principle  of  unity,  64  /. ;  a  sacri- 
fice, 64,  272;  Calvinistic  theory 
of,  271  /.,  370,  385;  Lutheran 
theory,  271  /.,  385;  Zwinglian 
theory,  264,  271,  370. 

Eusebius,  62,  301. 

Evangelicahsm,  318,  320,  322,  325. 

Evolution,  439. 

Fairford,  Bishop,  140,  142. 
Faith  of  the  Church,  184. 


Faith  cure,  250. 

Family  of  God,  42. 

Farel,  139. 

Fatherhood  of  God,  337. 

Feeling,  religious,  223/. 

Field,  Richard,  92,  129,  131,  133, 
136-7. 

Fisher,  G.  P.,  328. 

Flock  of  Christ,  38. 

Fogazaro,  407-8. 

Forbes,  John,  280. 

Forgiveness  of  Sins,  337. 

Form  of  ordination,  111/. 

Formula  of  Concord,  184, 268, 271, 
307,  390. 

Friends,  270.     See  Quakers. 

Fulke,  21. 

Functions,  of  government,  169, 
218,  244;  priestly,  156;  pro- 
phetic, 155;  royal,  155. 

Gehenna,  361. 

Gnosticism,  46,  51,  58. 

Goodwin,  John,  308. 

Gordon,  case  of.  111,  113. 

Gore,  Bishop,  80,  83,  85,  88  /.,  92, 
248,  289,  328,  376. 

Grace,  efficient,  258;  irresistible, 
259;  prevenient,  349;  sacra- 
mental, 258/,  340;  sufficient, 
258. 

Gregory  the  Great,  424. 

Grotius,  12,  280,  416. 

Hades,  343  /.,  361  /. 

Halifax,  Lord,  381. 

HaU,  Bp.,  91-2,  133,  139-40. 

Hamilton,  Bishop,  140,  142. 

Harnack,    51,    57,    59,    83,    204, 

444-5. 
Hase,  353. 
Hatch,  80,  83. 
Heaven,  344. 

Hermann,  Archbishop,  128 
Hermas,  47,  61,  344. 
Heylyn,  133  /. 
Hippolytus,  63. 
Hitchcock,  R.  D.,  293. 
Hodge,  A.  A.,  348. 
Hodge,  Chas.,  269,  312. 
Hook,  134. 

Hooker,  91-2,  129,  131,  133,  140. 
Hort,  24,  28-9. 
Hosius,  301. 


456 


INDEX 


House  of  God,  40  /. 
Household  of  God,  42. 

Ignatius,  47,  59,  61  /.,  47. 

Immanence,  397. 

Immolation,  273,  279. 

Impanation,  284. 

Incarnation,  364. 

Incense,  366  /. 

Independents,  170. 

Index,  Papal,  211,  394,  401. 

Inerrancy,  328  /.,  430,  438. 

Infallibility,  221  /.;  of  the  Bible, 
236  /.;  of  Christian  consensus, 
233  /.;  of  the  Church,  226  /.; 
executive,  244;  judicial,  244; 
legislative,  244;  of  oecimienical 
councils,  226  /.;  of  the  Pope, 
228  /.;  relative,  244  /.;  threefold, 
243/. 

Inquisition,  new,  394,  405  /. 

Inspiration,  239,  325. 

Institution,  words  of,  267,  276. 

Intention,  in  ordination.  111/. 

Interims,  390. 

Intermediate  State,  335/.,  349, 
350  /.,  357  /. 

Intolerance,  20. 

Ireland,  Archbishop,  410  /. 

Irenseus,  48  /.,  59,  61,  64,  205,  300, 
414. 

Irenics,  defined,  1;  its  spirit,  9/., 
its  tasks,  9  /. ;  relation  to  po- 
lemics, 2  /.;  to  symbolics,  1. 

Janssen,  403. 

Jerome,  324. 

Jesuits,  407,  429. 

Judgment,  at  death,  339;  final, 
345. 

Jure  divino  theories,  81,  83,  86  /., 
92,  164. 

Jure  humano  theories,  81,  83,  94, 
96,  164. 

Jurisdiction,  appellate,  169,  171; 
concurrent,  181,  256;  ecclesias- 
tical, 169  /.;  of  doctrines,  181  /.; 
original,  169;  of  morals,  191  /., 
195;  of  persons,  193  /.,  of  tne 
Pope,  206,  413/.;  territorial, 
176/. 

Justification,  335,  338/.,  341, 
347  /.,  353,  363,  431. 

Justin,  48,  61,  63,  64. 


Kahnis,  331-2,  353. 

Kant,  353. 

Keble,  370. 

Kenosis,  363. 

Kingdom  of  Christ,  368;  of  God, 

33/. 
Knox,  John.,  91,  129. 

Langen,  108. 

Laud,  Archbishop,  91  /.,  95, 133  /., 

139  /.,  150,  378,  380. 
Laying  on  of  hands.  111,  154,  254. 
Leibnitz,  12,  267,  272,  416. 
Leighton,  Bishop,  140  /.,  154. 
Leo  XIII.,  12,  21,  67,  110,  112, 

114,  121,  124,  144,  403,  432. 
Liberty  of  worship,  367/.,  388/. 
Lightfoot,  Bishop,  80,  83,  85. 
Lights  in  processions,  366  /. 
Lindsay,  John,  131. 
Linus,  108. 
Liturgies,  390. 
Livingston,  91. 
Logos,  293. 

Loisy,  394  /.,  398  /.,  404,  428. 
Lost,  souls  of,  360  /. 
Love,  22,  431,  449;  of  God,  335  /.; 

principle  of  unity,  62. 
Lucian,  302. 
Luther,  91,  206,  268-9,  317,  328, 

343,  358,  414,  417  /.,  420,  428. 
Lutheranism,  80. 

MacCoU,  377. 
Manichaeism,  356. 
Manning,  Cardinal,  370. 
Marcellus,  300. 
Marcion,  51,  58,  204. 
Marriage,  75,  192,  211-2,  255  /. 
Marshall,  Stephen,  91. 
Martensen,  95,  331-2,  353. 
Mason,  Fr.,  92,  130  /.,  133. 
Mass,    272;    Anglican,    261,    275; 

Roman,  276. 
Matrimony,  247/. 
Matter  of  ordination.  111. 
Maurice  of  Saxony,  128. 
Medievalism,  369,  402  /.,  438. 
Medicine,  pastoral,  252. 
Melanchthon,  12,91,128,269,416. 
Melville,  91,  92. 
Methodists,  80,  312,  349,  381. 
Middle  State,  335,  357  /. 
Millennium,  340. 


INDEX 


457 


Minchah,  274. 

Moberly,  376. 

Moderator,  100. 

Modernists,    233,    396  /.,    400  /., 

435/. 
Mohler,  290,  352,  400. 
Monsignori,  423. 
Montanism,  58. 
More,  Sir  Thomas,  420. 
Morin,  84. 
Mortification,  356. 
Muller,  Julius,  331,  353 
Multipresence,  284  /. 
Mystery,  248. 

Neale,  135  /. 

Neander,  328,  428. 

Nectarius,  134. 

Newman,  Cardinal,  67  /.,  284,  370, 

399/.,  446 
Nitzsch,  353. 
Nonconformists,  386  /. 

Omnipresence,  285. 

Opus  operatum,  259  /.,  262. 

Order,  247/.,  255;  form  of,  151; 
functions  of,  152  /.;  jurisdiction 
of,  152/.;  matter  of,  151;  sacra- 
ment of ,  149/.,  151. 

Orders,  Anglican,  110/.,  432; 
Presbyterian,  127  /. ;  recognition 
of,  161  /. ;  sacramental,  123; 
validity  of,  102  /. 

Ordinal,  99;  Anglican,  149;  Ed- 
wardine,  113  /.,  124;  Protestant 
Episcopal,  154  /.;  Sarum,  122; 
Scottish,  142. 

Ordinations,  88  /. ;  episcopal,  99  /. ; 
per  saltum,  135  /. ;  presbyterial, 
99  /.,  162  /.;  valid,  107. 

Ordo  salutis,  348  /.,  352,  359. 

Origen,  316. 

Orthodoxy,  5,  55  /.,  447. 

Oxford  movement,  366,  369  /. 

Paget,  Bishop,  248. 

Papacy,  108:  absolutism  of,  219 
410/.;  Biblical  basis  of,  202/. 
constitutionahsed,  212  /.,  421  /. 
domain  of,  210;  historic  right 
205  /. ;  primacy  of,  205  /.,  207  /. 
real  and  ideal,  201/.;  reforma- 
tion of,  219-220. 

Paradise,  344. 


Parker,  Archbishop,   127,   160. 

Patience,  19  /. 

Patriarchates,  171-2. 

Peace  of  the  Church,  443. 

Penance,  247  /.,  251  /. 

People  of  God,  37  /. 

Peter  Martyr,  91,  128. 

Philo,  293. 

Pietism,  318. 

Pius  I,  108. 

Pius  IX,  211,  393-4. 

Pius  X,  121,  211,  393  /.,  408,  420, 

425,  437. 
Plato,  403. 
Pliny,  61. 

Plymouth  brethren,  355-6. 
Polemics,  2  /.,  7. 
Polycarp,  47,  59. 
Pontifical,  124. 
Poole,  326. 
Precedent  of  1610. 
Predestination,  336. 
Premillenarianism,  340. 
Presbyter  bishops,  83,  105  /. 
Presbyterianism,  78. 
Presbytery,  82,  169. 
Presence,     christophanic,    288/.; 

sacramental,  263  /.,  370. 
Preservation  of  body,  297/. 
Priest,  functions  of,  278. 
Priesthood,  103  /.,  115  /.,  119  /., 

156;  of  Christ,  275;  universal, 

431/. 
Primacy,  of  Peter,   202/.;  of  the 

Pope,  58;  of  Rome,  58.     Also 

see  Papacy. 
Probation,  339,  341  /.,  349,  362. 
Prophecv,  103  /.,  118  /.,  155. 
Proposals  of  1661,  98. 
Protestantism,   206/.,    213,    336, 

355,  428  /.,  433  /.;  principles  of, 

429/. 
Punishment,  eternal,  361  /. 
Purgatory,  334,  338,  354,  363. 
Puritanism,  318,  345,  368  /.,  379  /., 

433. 
Pusey,  370. 

Quadrilateral  of  Unity,  6,  23,  70, 
73  /.,  246.  See  also  Articles, 
Chicago  Lambeth. 

Quakers,  263,  345,  428. 

Rationalism,  320,  322,  325. 


458 


INDEX 


Reaction,  Catholic,  69  /. 

Reason,  430. 

Redemption,  after  death,  341/.; 
narrow  views  of,  338. 

Reform  of  Catholic  Church,  233. 

Reformation,  principles  of,  317  /.; 
right  of,  416. 

Regeneration,  349,  355,  362;  bap- 
tismal, 262. 

Repentance,  251  /. 

Representation,  eucharistic,  278  /. 

Reservation  of  sacrament,  366  /., 
370/. 

Resurrection  of  Christ,  281. 

Reunion,  410  /.,  444.  See  also 
Unity. 

Revision  of  Symbols,  308  /.,  416. 

Reynolds,  Bishop,  11,  97 

Ritschl,  331. 

Robinson,  Ed.,  91. 

Royalty,  103  /.,  155 

Rubrics,  367  /.,  371. 

Rufinus,  300. 

Rutherford,  91,  328. 

Ryle,  328. 


Sabatier,  437. 

Sabbath,  192  /. 

Sacrament,  370  /. 

Sacramentalia,  257. 

Sacraments,  Calvinistic  theory  of, 
264  /. ;  effects  of,  294  /. ;  form  and 
matter,  248/.;  grace  of,  258/.; 
institution  of,  247;  Lutheran 
theory  of,  271  /.,  385;  means  of 
grace,  249 /.;  minor  ones,  250  /.; 
number  of,  246  /.;  presence  of 
Christ,  263/.;  the  term,  248; 
Zwinglian  theory,  264,  271,  370. 

Sacrifice,  of  Chrifit,  277;  of  cove- 
nant, 274;  eucharistic,  115/., 
272/.;  kinds  of,  273;  parts  of, 
278  f.;  Passover,  274;  peace 
offering,  273  /.;  sin  offering,  273, 
277  /.;  trespass  offering,  273, 
278;  unbloody  offering,  273; 
whole  burnt  offering,  273,  277. 

Salvation,  333;  of  heathen,  345  /.; 
of  infants,  335,  345  /. 

Salvationists,   170,  263,  270. 

Sanctification,  335,  338  /.,  341, 
348,  356,  431,  449;  after  death, 
350  /. ;  immediate,  355. 


Sanday,  83,  328,  377. 

Satisfaction,  252  /. 

Savoy  Conference,  376. 

Schaff,  P.,  12,  83,  307,  328,  353, 

357,  417. 
Schleiermacher,  428. 
Scholasticism,  320,  402,  439. 
Science,  Christian,  250. 
Scripture,  Holy,  323  /.;  canon  of, 

324.     See    also    Bible,    Canon, 

and  Criticism. 
Scrivener,  28. 
Semi-Arminianism,  341  /. 
Separatists,  68. 
Sharp,  Archbishop,  140  /. 
Shedd,  W.  T.,  312. 
Sheol,  344. 
Sin,    against    Holy    Spirit,    353; 

mortal,  251/. 
Smith,  H.  B.,  332,  357,  363. 
Smith,  H.  P.,  186,  328. 
Smythe,  Newman,  328,  426. 
Socrates,  322. 
Soter,  62. 

Spinola,  12,  267,  272. 
Spirit  of  God,  in  the  Bible,  239, 

333;  in  Canon  of  Mass,  261  /.; 

guidance  of,  235  /.,  240  /.,  316; 

invocation  of,  261  /.;  regenera- 
tion by,  349;  reviving  influence, 

318;  sacramental  work  of,  261  /.; 

in  theophany,  315. 
Spottiswoode,  132,  134  /.,  140. 
Staupitz,  338,  420. 
Subscription,    164/.,    185/.,   238, 

307. 
Substance,   christophanic,    292/.; 

eucharistic,  286,  288. 
Succession,    apostolic,    58,   87/., 

102  /.,  432;  episcopal,  143,  149, 

164;  presbyterial,  143,  164. 
Suggestion,  295  /. 
Superintendent,  170. 
Supralapsarianism,  337. 
Sydserf,  140  /. 
Syllabus    of    Pius    IX,    211;    of 

Pius  X,  211,393/. 
Symbolics,  1. 
Symbols  of  Faith,  306  /. 
Sympathy,  14  /. 
Synagogue,  25  /. 
Synod,    170;    of    Dort;    139,    of 

Jamnia,   324;  of   Orange,  306, 

321. 


INDEX 


459 


Taylor,  Isaac,  319. 

Taylor,  Jeremy,  91. 

Temperaments,  17. 

Temperance,  193. 

Temple  of  God,  40  /. 

Tertullian,  300. 

Tetzel,  414,  417,  419. 

Thayer,  25,  328,  361. 

Theology,  Biblical,  17,  273,  309  /., 

330. 
Theophanies,  283,  291,  293,  295. 
Tholuck,  328,  353. 
Tischendorf,  28. 
Toleration,  388. 
Tradition,  apostolic,  241  /. 
Traditionalists,  320,  439. 
Transubstantiation,  267  /. 
Travers,  91,  93. 
Truth,  7  /. 
Tuckney,  186. 
Tunnel,  108. 
TyrreU,  394,  398  /.,  403  /. 

Ubiquity,  284. 

Unction,  247  /.,  250. 

Uniformity,  20,  182,  367  /.,  374  /. 

Unitarians,  345. 

Unity,  Catholic,  70/. ;  geographical, 

66;    threefold    cord    of,    412/. 

See  also  Reunion. 
Universalists,  345,  362. 
Usher,  95,  383. 

Validity,     of    orders,     102/.;    of 


Anghcan  orders,  110/.;  of  Prea- 

byterian  orders,  127  /. 
Van  Dyke,  H.  J.,  269. 
Van  Oosterzee,  328,  331  /. 
Vasquez,  280. 
Victor,  Pope,  414 
Vincent,  Boyd,  81,  164. 
Vincent  of  Lerins,  69,  232,  234. 
Vincent,  M.  R.,  328. 
Vine  of  the  Church,  38. 
Vines,  326. 
Viret,  139. 
Virgin  birth,  364. 
Virtues,  429. 
Vows,  194  /. 

Wallis,  11,  326. 

Welch,  91. 

Wesley,  318. 

Westcott,  28. 

Whichcote,  186. 

Whitby,  341,  342. 

White,  91. 

Whitefield,  318. 

Whitgift,  91,  92,  95. 

Wife  of  God,  43. 

Wiseman,  Cardinal,  68,  446. 

Wordsworth,    Bishop,    101,    108, 

136,  144,  165. 
Worship,  391  /. 

Zwingli,  91,  268-9,  271,  317,  345 
420. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  50  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


M^.   :^;^    ic)43 


JM  P3  194.'^ 


240c!  Me  H^ 


R£C  L)  L,t^ 


rE6  2  7-64-i^M 


BQV_3j28Lad 


RecsivEBr 


3O0m^ki 


W^ 


1959  lU 


Nonq^B^'^pM 


iiOA 


^ 


^'^^  «/s«u, 


FEB  1 5  'r 


7  1968  35' 


^ 


RCC'D 


^gB*15  I6S8 


^larifiS&WN 


RtC  u  I.  J 


DEO  0    1902 


LD  21-100m-7,'40(6986s) 


I 


\CX 


ssi"^^ 


v-^  ^UNIVERSITY  OF  CALlFORNiyV  U^RARY 


S' 


-W 


